« Giuliani continues to lead although Thompson and McCain gaining support | Main | Dumb America and superior Europe? »

Comments

JF

Thatcher was truly a superb PM, no doubt about it, just as Reagan was a remarkable President. But this hero-worship is starting to become tiresome; how about some leaders who will create their own paths and look to the future rather than look backward and emulate the past?

Different era, different problems.

That said, America could do worse than Giuliani (e.g. Fred Thompson).

MH

Everyone except David Cameron, that is.

Tony Makara

It always annoys me that when people are critical of president Reagans era they always hark back to the very early difficult days when Reagan had to turn the US economy around, they never mention the success that followed.

To return to the point in question, I don't see anything wrong with admiring former leaders if its for the right reasons, not using them in the way that Gordon Brown used Margaret Thatcher.

On the subject of Margaret Thatcher, I always admired the way she stood by Augusto Pinochet. Many world leaders wrongly saw Pinochet as a pariah but Thatcher stuck by him after his ideologcally driven arrest in Britain. I believe in democracy and think there are times when a coup is justified to protect democracy, as was the case in Chile. Very few leaders would want to have been photographed with Augusto Pinochet but Margaret Thatcher would have stood proudly by him.

JF

Tony Makara, certainly an argument can be made along the lines you are proposing for Pinochet, but I don't think that argument can be made for Thatcher. Pinochet did much to strengthen the Chilean economy, but how did he strengthen its democracy?

Let's read this line again:

I believe in democracy and think there are times when a coup is justified to protect democracy, as was the case in Chile.

Perhaps I missed something, but how is this anything other than the Ben Tre argument ("It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it")?

Also, how does this reconcile with Thatcher's inexplicable anger at the US invasion of Grenada in 1983? This enduring anger over Grenada (start a Britain vs. America fight and it inevitably is raised by the British) just boggles the mind.

Tony Makara

JF, I think each case for a democracy-saving coup has to be judged on its own merits. On the question of the coup in Chile, we have to look at the economic situation at the time, widescale food shortages and moves towards the eventual abolition of private property etc. Pinochet never claimed he could bring about a pure democracy, his objective was to restore order in a country that was drifting towards anarchy. Certainly there were cases of human rights abuse, but these were down to the excess acts of individuals rather than the results of a directive from the Junta.

On the subject of Grenada, well I personally supported the overthrow of adespotic marxist regime that took power by force and then moved to eradicate all other political parties. The takeover was clearly backed by Cuba/USSR, so the invasion was a case of tit for tat. I think there are clear differences in Pinochet's coup in Chile and the Marxist take over in Grenada. Margaret Thatcher was at the time unhappy about the way it was tackled, but not unhappy to see the Marxists wiped out I'm sure.

Maduka

Tony Makara,

Your one dimensional view of the world is exactly why the term "conservative" is a dirty word in many parts of the world.

There was absolutely nothing right about supporting Pinochet. Pinochet was a mass murderer and a human rights abuser. Thatcher was as wrong to support him as she was to call Mandela a terrorist.

Why would you accuse leftists of supporting Chavez, yet give Thatcher a pass for supporting Pinochet. Are brutal conservative dictators better than brutal leftist / Islamist dictators?

Whatever happened to principles?

The Conservative movement in the United States is intellectually weak. The base consists fundamentalists while the leadership lacks ideas. It is held together, not by any grand idea, but a common hatred of same-sex marriage,abortion and a desire to bomb an ever increasing number of countries.

There seems to be a lethal mix of arrogance, impatience, certainty, naivette and bluster. What else explains Tancredo's silly threat to bomb "Mecca and Medina"? What else explains the popularity of Ann Coulter?

The republican party really needs to lose the next election - that's the only thing that would save the conservative movement in America.

Tony Makara

Maduka, so you think Nelson Mandela wasn't a terrorist? Maybe you should read some objective studies of the ANC? Now post-apartheid Mandela is portrayed as a friendly grandfatherly but his past was very different. I don't want to go off-topic so I will just say the ANC was a communist terrorist group, Mandela was its leader and he always refused to denounce the violence it used.

Pinochet saved Chile. As I said earlier I recognise there were human rights abuses but these were carried out by individuals and not at the command of Augusto Pinochet.

Finally, I don't accept that Conservatism is a dirty word or that its wrong to protest against abortion. Personally I find it obscene that innocent children are murdered legally purely for reasons of expedience. Abortion clinics are, in my opinion, on a par with the genocide camps of world war two.

JF

Maduka,

I must agree with Tony, the ANC was the very definition of a terrorist group. The tactics of the ANC were arguably even worse than those of the worst Muslim extremists of today. Have you heard of "necklace" killing tactics used by the ANC against other blacks to intimidate them into supporting the ANC? The ANC would chop off the hands of the victim to ensure he couldn't escape, then would fill a tire with gasoline and string it around the neck of the victim, then light it on fire. This would ensure that the poor bastard would suffer excruciating pain as he burned to death over a 20 minute period. This was often done in front of the victim's family.

Sawing off heads looks merciful in comparison, doesn't it?

The Conservative movement is the most vibrant and diverse intellectual political movement in the US. We have supply-siders and compassionate conservatives; nation builders and isolationists; social conservatives and libertarians. Contrast with the Left, which is uniformly Stalinist, just of different grades.

I agree with you on one thought, however. When the conservatives lose the next election, the Left will so thoroughly destroy the country that it will ensure a renewed Republican Revolution in the following election.

Maduka

Tony, JF

Help me, I am struggling. First you throw around the word "communist".

In the sixties, black South Africans and Americans were looking for equal treatment under the law.

If you recall the story of the good samaritan, help did not come from the self-righteous high-priests (read conservatives) but from the samaritan sinner (read liberal, progressive, communists). We took the help that was available.

(If conservatives offered to help then, we would have grasped it with both hands - it never came).

Mandela went to jail in the late sixties and he made it clear that he was prepared to use violent means to fight for equal rights. He was a freedom fighter, and what he did was justified. (Begin and the Irgun used similar tactics).

"Necklacing" that occured later (when Mandela was in jail) was regrettable, but is instructive to note that conservatives saw nothing wrong in Buthelezi using the same tactics (because you supported him).

Conservatives sweep away Sharpeville, Steve Biko and Soweto as being inconsequential. Reagan and Thatcher prolonged Apartheid uneccessarily. Infact Reagan and Thatcher SUPPORTED Apartheid.

Please understand me:
1. I am anti-abortion.
2. I support low taxes.
3. I support the free market (I worked as a business consultant).

But I can never identify myself as a "western conservative" because I am black.

Why, because under the "conservative" veneer is a tinge of xenophobia, that no minority will ever be fully comfortable with.

Maduka

JF,

The conservative party in Britain is a progressive party (I admire it), while the Republican Party in America has essentially become the party of the White Southern Male. (Andrew Sullivan wrote extensively about this).

Deep in my heart, I would love to be a conservative, but I can't.

Steevo

"In the sixties, black South Africans and Americans were looking for equal treatment under the law.

"If you recall the story of the good samaritan, help did not come from the self-righteous high-priests (read conservatives) but from the samaritan sinner (read liberal, progressive, communists). We took the help that was available.

"(If conservatives offered to help then, we would have grasped it with both hands - it never came)."

Oh brother. Looks like one heck of an extrapolation and self-righteousness going on here.

I agree, you're struggling... to squeeze it out.

How about not being intellectually dishonest before you attempt to judge intelligence?

Conservatives may have part of their base (not as much as previous years) consisting of Christian Fundamentalists but so what? What conservatives don't have is a mix of totalitarians from elitist socialists, to sympathizers of Islamist Fundamentalism. You talk about principles? Yeah like liberals stand for human rights.

A "hatred of same-sex marriage"? In other words a hatred of those who are gay. No, its your hatred of traditional marriage and the only way it has been defined consisting of a man and a woman. Being against abortion is a hatred of killing innocent life which should take precedence above "choice". Oh but wait a minute, even tho you initially lumped in with hatred now you are with the anti-abortionists? And a "desire to bomb an ever increasing number of countries"? Have no idea what you're talking about but if that's reference to Iraq then again its one more smear. Explain your solution for the betterment of humanity.

Big deal about Andrew Sullivan. Wouldn't you know, you read this guy and take it as your gospel given right to cast a broad prejudice brush. I'm not from the south. Neither is JF. Doesn't matter tho. Fact: Southern white guy Republicans are just beneath you and Andrew.

jack

Maduka,

the conservative in USA means mostly social conservate. they careless for fiscal conservatism. If you look at the conservative at the rest of the world, they wont fit in the same definition in the US. they don't attempt to conserve the ecology and environment, they dont conserve the wild . nothing. they are fundamental religious conservatives and the countries is divided by politicians who created a wedge between fundamental christians and lefties by portraying lefties as commies. in actuality i doubt any of these americans know what exactly communism is. i mostly think they confuse socialims with communism. lefties have began a hatred on these fundies who blindly follow the republicans and their talking points. i think the republican rot started long back. say 50 yrs back. but george bush is just bringing an armageddon for the party.

JF

Maduka,

I sympathize with your views that the Democrats provided opportunity for minorities in the 1960s that the Republicans did not. Fair enough. Forty years later, it's no longer about equal treatment, but rather, better than equal treatment. You were a business consultant, so you are probably aware of the unbelievable advantages that minorities are granted when it comes to competing for government contracts. That, plus affirmative action and minority-sourcing goals that are rife in the private sector indicate that racism can no longer

Since the civil rights movement (which, I remind you, Southern Democrats opposed), the Democrats have taken blacks for granted to a disgusting degree, and why should they do otherwise, when they can expect a 90%+ automatic vote from that demographic? Seriously, what does the Democratic Party offer minorities today that Republicans cannot? The Bush administration has had minorities serving in positions of unprecedented power, so it should be abundantly clear that the notion that Republicans are innately racist is little more than Democratic propaganda.

Just think what African-Americans could accomplish if they ever made the Democratic Party work for their vote (e.g. by occasionally punishing them and voting for Republicans).

On to the ANC. The anti-apartheid struggle took place in the context of the Cold War, let's not forget. By embracing the communists and the NAM, the ANC put itself at odds with the capitalist West, regardless of the atrocities. But it certainly didn't win the moral high ground by employing such horrific tactics. So how could the West support the ANC, when the ANC was promising to oppose the West as soon as it had its hands on power?

Yes, the National Party also employed horrible tactics. The difference is that Mandela has a sickening moral authority bestowed on him by the "international community," so when he supports the "Palestinian aspiration for statehood," (you know, one terrorist to another), it carries weight with certain weak-minded populations in the diplomatic arena. The reality is that the ANC used terrorist tactics to achieve power (against blacks, no less), so it has no moral standing.

Oh, by the way, have you followed the disintegration of South Africa since the ANC came to power? You really should read up on this, whether it's their mismangement of the economy, the AIDS epidemic, or discrediting the democratic system by demagoguing against the Opposition.

As I pointed out above, Buthelezi opposed communism, which was the primary guiding principle of US foreign policy after WWII. We supported him not because he committed atrocities, but because he opposed communism. The ANC could have done the same, except it chose to commit atrocities and support communism.

Conservatives sweep away Sharpeville, Steve Biko and Soweto as being inconsequential.

I am curious why you think so, or at least why you believe they dismissed these events to any greater degree than Democrats dismissed it.

Infact Reagan and Thatcher SUPPORTED Apartheid.

Proof? A well sourced direct quotation will do. Heresay from some extreme-left journalist or professor will not do.

But I can never identify myself as a "western conservative" because I am black.

What can I say? Your demagoguery against the likes of Michael Steele, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, and many more is revolting. When you define conservatism as innately antithetical to minorities, regardless of what the ideology actually stands for (i.e. meritocracy), conservatives can't win. And frankly, neither do minorities.

while the Republican Party in America has essentially become the party of the White Southern Male. (Andrew Sullivan wrote extensively about this).

Not by choice of the conservatives, certainly. It's extremely difficult to correct decades of propaganda and brainwashing. And if it makes you feel any better, as a non-Evangelical neoconservative, I, too, feel on the fringes of the GOP these days. But I realize that the best way to change the GOP is to change it from within, and if the paleoconservatives push me out, then I can try my hand with the Blue Dog Democrats. But either way, as soon as I pledge my undying and unquestioning loyalty to either party, I lose all leverage.

I realize that I won't convince you to wake up tomorrow and become a Republican, but perhaps you'll start to see a bit more clearly that what you were taught to believe growing up (e.g. Republicans are all racists, conservatives want to suppress minorities and self-determination, etc.) was propaganda. As your friends on the Left love to say, the world is far more nuanced than black and white.

atheling

Maduka,

You're full of it. There are plenty of minorities in America who are conservative and Republican and I'm one of them. Never have I experienced any sense of alienation or segregation from my fellow party members or conservatives...even if we disagree on certain policies. There's room for dissent and disagreement there, but not within the Liberal Democrat Establishment.

Maduka

JF,

We pitched our case to the conservatives for at least 100 years, they didn't hear us out. When the leftists came, we jumped at the opportunity.

You see (whether we like it or not) our identity influences how we see the world. While people of Anglo-Saxon heritage saw the World of the sixties as a conflict between Communist and non-Communistic systems, people of African descent saw the sixties as a period of conflict for self-determination.

To us, self-determination, civil rights and empowerment were more important to us than categories like "communist" or "non-communist".

I accept that there are problems with the post-civil rights society that have to be fixed, but we are overall, better off than we were in the sixties. We can discuss these problems another day.

Conservatives always talk about looking at history to guide the present and future. If African Americans use the same principles, what conclusions will they arrive at?

You must understand that there are many ways of looking at the world. Soldiers of my grandfather's generation that fought the Japanese in Burma were frequently asked by the Japanese - "West Africans, what are you fighting for?".

To them the Japanese were less evil than the British (colonial masters). They fought because the British forced them to, they fought to preserve a system that ensured they would remain second-class citizens.

If you ignore that version of history, if you insist on using categories like "communist vs non-communist", your understanding of minorities (and even the world around you) will never be complete.

There is a strong African and African American conservative tradition, but it does not line up neatly behind Reagan and Thatcher. The African American Church is very conservative (forget Sharpton and Jackson).

Now there is much to be admired about conservative philosophy, but the "conservative movement" in the US is basically an alliance of social conservatives and religious fundamentalists. Business people could go either way (Clinton had better "conservative" economic policies than Bush). Tony Blair's Labour Party in Britain did a good job with the economy.

The signs from the "conservative movement" are not encouraging:
1. The debate over evolution.
2. Denial of global warming/ Climate Change. The "conservative movement" seems to be driven more by emotion than logic. (Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'reilly, Rush - I can't stand these people).

That is dangerous.

I could live with a McCain presidency, but that's as far as I could go.

Steevo

"To us, self-determination, civil rights and empowerment were more important to us than categories like "communist" or "non-communist"."

But its more, much more than just "categories". Self-determination? It simply doesn't exist with the Left, with communism, with elitist power from on high.

You, a black man should understand categorization and its evils. Instead you employ it, ie we conservatives are full of hate and the Republican party consists of white southerners in whom its obvious you are above.

You simplify with generalizations that have little to do with the present. Martin Luther King has nothing to do with present-day liberals and multiculturalism. When was the last time you heard a liberal preach content of character over color of skin? And the African American Church is more diverse than you know although too many have been bought and sold on the Democrat plantation of victimhood and enslavement of big nanny government. That is what American conservatives are against, the antithesis of liberals. My goodness you wanna categorize, label ideology, and extrapolate going all the way back to Christ attempting self-justification of the Left. How absurd.

Also your views of Clinton are self-serving as it was Republican conservatives forcing his hand. And better than Bush? Prove it. And I've read plenty of Brits claim Blair's economic policies have not been good but I'm an American and unlike you wouldn't presume upon your country's internal policies to directly contradict you.


"The signs from the "conservative movement" are not encouraging:
1. The debate over evolution.
2. Denial of global warming/ Climate Change. The "conservative movement" seems to be driven more by emotion than logic. (Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'reilly, Rush - I can't stand these people)."

"That is dangerous."

You're narrow-minded, bigoted and self-centered. You have no clue. You don't deserve freedom from democracy.

JF

Maduka,

Let me start by saying that I appreciate you're keeping an open mind about this and giving me the opportunity to present my case.

We pitched our case to the conservatives for at least 100 years, they didn't hear us out. When the leftists came, we jumped at the opportunity.

Not sure I follow, as you've left out major Republican contributions to civil rights over the last century. Among other things:

It was the Republican Party that abolished slavery (the Thirteenth Amendment), not the Democratic Party. It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which gave freed slaves their first legal rights. It was a Republican President (Ulysses S. Grant), who sheparded through and signed the Fifteenth Amendment (guaranteeing the right to vote to all, no matter what race or religion). Ulysses Grant also forcefully cracked down on the KKK using soldiers and the courts. It was a Republican President (Eisenhower) who used the military to ensure that Brown vs. Board of Education was enforced. It was a Republican President (also Eisenhower) who started the first civil rights legislation since 1870 in proposing and signing into law the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, which laid the groundwork for the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

In contrast, the Democrats appointed the justices responsible for the Dred Scott decision. A Democratic President (Buchanan) enforced it, leading in part to the Civil War. It was Southern Democrats who stymied the civil rights agenda of the late Truman Presidency (you will remember, of course, that prior to LBJ, the Democrats dominated the South). LBJ himself was responsible for weakening the 1957 Civil Rights Act to ensure it would be more acceptable to his fellow Democrats.

Who appointed the first African-American as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? A Republican (Bush 41 appointed Colin Powell). Who appointed the first African-American as Secretary of State? Again, a Republican (Bush 43, Colin Powell). Who appointed the first African-American woman as Secretary of State? Again, Bush 43 (Condoleezza Rice, who was also the first female National Security Advisor).

The conclusion you should draw from this is that the Republicans are not the evil racists that you have been led to believe, and the Democrats have certainly not been as pure as their propaganda has taught.

While people of Anglo-Saxon heritage saw the World of the sixties as a conflict between Communist and non-Communistic systems, people of African descent saw the sixties as a period of conflict for self-determination.

I appreciate that, and sympathize with that view. But you should take a moment to appreciate the fact that African-Americans were in this position because it was the Democrats who instituted the Jim Crow laws.

To them the Japanese were less evil than the British (colonial masters).

To be blunt, they thought so because they were ignorant. The Japanese easily rank among the most racist people in the world, especially then, but even today (I lived for years in Japan and can confirm this personally). Their society is condescending towards White foreigners, but you should hear some of the things they say about Blacks when they think that the stupid gaijin nearby doesn't understand Japanese. No, the West Africans who thought the Japanese were better than the British should thank their lucky stars that the Japanese didn't conquer Africa.

There is a strong African and African American conservative tradition, but it does not line up neatly behind Reagan and Thatcher. The African American Church is very conservative (forget Sharpton and Jackson).

I think this is the basis on which we can build mutual trust. In the end, once we get past skin color, we actually have a lot in common. It's getting based the race-based system that the Democrats have built up that is the main obstacle.

but the "conservative movement" in the US is basically an alliance of social conservatives and religious fundamentalists.

It's unfortunate that our hard-left MSM has been so successful in creating this image of the GOP. As I pointed out above, the conservative movement is much more diverse than the Left portrays. It ranges from atheist libertarians to atheist supply-siders to atheist national security hawks to atheist neoconservatives to atheist isolationists to, yes, Evangelicals and social conservatives. You only need to look at our Republican candidates for president to see this diversity, and from Giuliani to Brownback to Ron Paul, they all call themselves Republicans. I myself am a non-Evangelical neoconservative (I hardly give a damn about social conservative issues), and I call myself a Republican.

Business people could go either way (Clinton had better "conservative" economic policies than Bush).

This is the baseless claim made by the MSM simply because the economy did well in the 1990s. But this was despite Clinton, not because of him. I challenge you to find a businessman who will claim that paying higher taxes made his business better. You might find that Clinton's high taxes laid the foundation for the offshoring we see these days that has hurt minorities more than any other group.

Tony Blair's Labour Party in Britain did a good job with the economy.

Whoa there. There is a consensus now that while Blair/Brown did a good job in their first few years, after 2000 or so, they have been systematically destroying the economy through higher taxes, higher regulation, and massively wasteful expenditures on "public services." The Economist (a left-of-center publication) supports me on this one.

The "conservative movement" seems to be driven more by emotion than logic.

Actually, it is the Democratic Party that is driven by emotion (primarily pity for minorities, compassion for the slackers, and hatred for the rich). The Republicans generally take a hard look at what really works in the real world and use empirical data and experience to make decisions. Believe me, if raising taxes, massively increasing regulation, and defining investments and hiring through the prism of race were good for business, then the Republicans would be completely behind it. But it's failed for fifty years, and it will fail for another fifty years. Republicans know this in their heads. So do the Democrats. But the Democrats don't lead with their heads, they lead with their hearts.

It is not a coincidence that the strongest and best-funded think tanks belong to the Right. The conservative movement is a movement of ideas and empirical testing--we throw away ideas that don't work. Compare with the Democrats, who are ideologically rigid and picked up from where they left off in the 1980s with no new ideas.

(Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'reilly, Rush - I can't stand these people).

Believe it or not, I also believe their over-the-top rhetoric is counter-productive. But I'm sure you can understand that these are not serious analysts, but entertainers looking to make money through highly exaggerated polemics.

In closing, you might ask yourself why it is that the Republicans insist on a color-blind society, judged only by merit, while Democrats insist on a race-based society, where all ethnicities are categorized and granted or denied privileges based on the color of their skin.

I look forward to the day that you give the conservatives a chance. Who knows, after getting past the left-wing propaganda about the movement, you might just like it. It's time to stop looking at the one thing Democrats did for minorities 50 years ago, and ask who can best serve your interests today.

Andy

"Tony Blair's Labour Party in Britain did a good job with the economy."

The British economy has done well in spite of Blair and not necessarily all because of him.

Much of the long-term credit has to be due to Margaret Thatcher in implementing a number of (painful as I remember) economic and institutional reforms.

Long-term gains were made: defeat of militant unions, privatisation of state industries, increases in home ownership etc all of which greatly improved the wealth of the British public.

I am certain Tony Blair would not have spoiled this by doing anything that Mrs T would have disapproved of!

Tony Makara

Maduka, the Democrats would like you to believe that you can't be a Conservative because you are black but that just isn't true. Conservatism recognises no racial distinctions. Conservatism supports equality for all. I certainly oppose racism, in fact I have been racially abused for being white, so I recognise that we cannot let the racists win.

On the subject of 'Necklacing' by the ANC perhaps you can see the comparison with atrocities carried out by individuals in Chile after the coup. Crimes not sanctioned by Pinochet but done by regegade individuals. Mandela's wife was involved in 'Necklacing' and to my knowledge Nelson Mandela never openly condemned such violence.

Steevo

It seems way too much from Maduka is driven by emotion or at best not by logic. I’m also white and have experienced racism and I despise it in all forms. The solution is to acknowledge it exists in the first place and those promoting present liberal policies with reverse discrimination are guilty of not owning up.

This has been a discussion with seemingly near complete one-way mindedness on the part of Maduka. There has is nothing rational when using a couple of millennia to apply terms like "liberal" and "conservative" to justify present judgment of people and their ideological association. Our 60s liberals had plenty in common with present day conservatives. Hubert Humphrey would never have granted government the authority to usurp our 2nd amendment and restrict gun ownership. And Kennedy's views of communism are not those of the present Democratic party – they are with many conservatives. Our modern day left/liberals have near complete intolerance of anyone deviating from the party line – look what happened to Lieberman. In the 60s we were “all members of God’s family.” Now the MO is to demonize just about everyone not in agreement. I think, kinda like what you’ve done, Maduka.

You come in here telling those of us who are conservative how dumb we are and how much we hate when really, you've lived in a cave linking your prejudiced historical references to the present. You’ve spewed your own gross lack of intelligence and, shall I say, lack of open-mindedness.

But we're supposed to believe in your heart of hearts you really wish you could be a conservative and not... sell out to the ideology in agreement with totalitarianism, sympathetic to Islamofascism, and against true equal rights and liberty from unjust government mandate and control? Right.

And its all our fault. Typical.

Tony Makara

Steevo, I reckon most white people have suffered racial abuse at some point. Except we don't have an organization that records it or makes a public point of it. White people are collectively lumped together as being 'racist' by the liberal/left. This in itself is racism. We must do more to destroy the myth that being right-wing means being a racist.

Steevo

I absolutely agree Tony.

Maduka

JF,

The terms "democrat" and "republican" meant different things at different periods of time. I understand that the Republican Party was formed as a progressive party and that the democratic party was the party of reaction. The democratic party shifted to the left in the sixties while the "dixiecrats" moved over to the Republican party. (Recall Nixon's "southern strategy").

I have a feeling that conservatives have not done enough work in understanding other cultural experiences. Reaching out to the African American community is an art form. You do not reach to the African American community by simply appointing Powell and Condi Rice and insisting that affirmative action be scrappped. African Americans are emotional people and they respond to that kind of language.(You cannot count the number of democratic politicians speaking from Black Church pulpits).

The conservatives might have real problems with the Hispanic community over immigration. Illegal immigration is wrong, but conservatives need to find a way to communicate this message without appearing xenophobic.

In the Western world liberals historically seem to do better with minorities than conservatives. It is not enough to blame "left-wing" propaganda for this state of affairs. Conservatives need to ask themselves the hard questions.

Three of the four major republican candidates declined to participate in a black organised debate, while only McCain bothered to attend the Hispanic debate.

Democratic candidates will never miss that kind of opportunity. This is something we need to think about.

By the middle of this century, the United States will be a majority "minority" nation. Will the conservative movement thrive in such an environment?

I am somewhat conservative, I am not onboard with the Democratic Party but I am not yet fully comfortable with the Republican Party.

Maduka

Tony,

I don't live my life crying "victim". Racism is wrong and it should be discouraged. Both of us have probably experienced racism and we should fight against it.

We cannot however, forget our history, because our history is our identity. Today we are a just and egalitarian community, but it has not always been that way.

It is unfortunate that while black organisations are associated with the legacy of Martin Luther King, white organisations are invariably associated with the Klu Klux Klan.

Tony, this is a historical problem, a very serious historical problem. It does not help that white organisations like Aryan Nations exist today.

I look foward to a day when "whites only" or "blacks only" organisations become a thing of the past.

atheling

Maduka:

Steevo is right. You're so prejudiced and racist it's pathetic.

You tell me where there are "whites only" organizations. Give an example.

"It is unfortunate that while black organisations are associated with the legacy of Martin Luther King, white organisations are invariably associated with the Klu Klux Klan."

That's the perception of the Leftist media and the idiots who believe them.

"I have a feeling that conservatives have not done enough work in understanding other cultural experiences. Reaching out to the African American community is an art form."

So, you're basing this on a "feeling"??? You just slammed conservatives for not believing in global warming based on emotions. Kettle calling the pot black, eh? (pun intended).

Frankly, I don't care about "reaching out" to African Americans (are you African or are you American? Make a choice) or any other minorities. Until minorities grow up and get over the chip on their shoulders they can wallow in self pity and infantilization.

They'll never achieve anything.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

ExtremeTracker

  • Tracker