My reply showed up at the bottom of the page for some reason.

Posted at May 27, 2008 4:22 PM in response to Taking the Adversary Seriously: History and Condescension

The issue is not about taking crime seriously. The issue is what is seen as a valid remedy. Leftist Democrats of the time saw the problem as something to be fixed by improving opportunity, through education, improved housing, alternatives to jail for non-violent offenders.

Nixon drove a wedge between the Michael Stivics and the Archie Bunkers by saying that the only way to deal with criminals is to get tough. You can say that's not racist if you want, and you can say that it may only have been self-interest, protecting their jobs from competition with blacks.

But he drove that wedge nonetheless. How would you suggest the democrats have prevented that from happening? And why are democrats still unsuccessfully pursuing these voters?

Posted at May 27, 2008 4:14 PM in response to Taking the Adversary Seriously: History and Condescension

So at the '68 convention, you would have suggested siding with Meany, and not McGovern? You would have rejected the idea of quotas on delegations, and left the power in the hands of the traditional power brokers?

Remember that the candidate who was nominated, and lost, was the one who had the support of the back room politicians.

"Law and order" is code for "uppity black people." How do you reconcile that with your idea that somehow the Democrats could have continued to pursue the southern white, and, ftm, the urban northern racist vote?

Posted at May 27, 2008 11:37 AM in response to Taking the Adversary Seriously: History and Condescension

But the Right did not advance on the basis of intellectual popularity. It advanced on the backs of race, as any glance at the changing electoral map will attest.

Max--a central theme of the book is Nixon's recognition of the opportunity to appeal to racists and to white voters who hated the dirty fucking hippies. Nixon recognized this, according to Rick, when neither conscending liberals, nor the contemporary punditocracy, nor many members of his own party. A central method Nixon used was the public rejecting intellectuals of kinds as snobs and elitists, friends of the radical-liberals who were burning down ROTC buildings on college campuses. (I'd forgotten the Kent State killings were preceded by the destruction of the ROTC building, with students interfering, successfully, with firefighters trying to quell the flames.)

A secondary point, liberals' political vulnerability on law and order I venture to say was part liberals are soft on blacks and blacks commit crimes, part reaction to numerous, justifiable acts of non-violent civil disobedience, and part unfounded faith in the deterrence of incarceration relative to rehabilitation. Of course there was crime and there was violence from parts of the Left.

Rick makes a point of the live television portrayal of the Watts riots, the first time something like that had happened in real time. While the impression one gets is that, net, there was more violence from government forces and right wing vigilantes, there was no shortage of violence from the left. Moreover, there were widespread loud, and, frankly, exaggerated statements about insurrection and revolution, by men holding up automatic rifles.

Nixon used the violent minority, the vocal and profane minority at his events (the advance teams made sure there were some there) to paint the majority of the left as profoundly in opposition to American institutions. People like Hoffman abetted him in this effort, by serving as a living manifestation of Nixon's caricature.

Posted at May 27, 2008 11:19 AM in response to Taking the Adversary Seriously: History and Condescension

test

Posted at April 19, 2008 4:46 AM in response to He Said, She Said

It's just a matter of time before he starts talking about Ho Chi Minh.

Phoenix WOman over at FDL has a post titled:

Will McCain Have Lieberman Next To Him At 3AM?

The New Yorker just had a cover with Obama and Clinton, in bed with a phone ringing, both reaching for it.

Still funnier with McCain and Lieberman."Joe, it's for you."

Posted at March 19, 2008 10:52 AM in response to McCain's Senior Moment

I got the book last week, opened up today. It's really remarkable. One forgets just how rigged this was.

Greg was on top of it, trying to keep reporters honest.

Buy the book.

Posted at March 17, 2008 6:53 PM in response to Some Questions to Start

Stop thinking small.

Hagee and Farrakhan. It's time to get serious.

Posted at March 6, 2008 3:17 PM in response to Obama and Clinton Supporters Must Drop Out of the Race

Remarkably well chosen moniker for that post there.....

Posted at March 6, 2008 3:16 PM in response to Obama and Clinton Supporters Must Drop Out of the Race

Didn't I see a comment of yours above, bitching about the absence of a front page? I think you have unknown powers over Andrew that you had best exercise only for good.

Good to see you again. All the format changes, and some instability has had me cowering on the front pages.

Posted at March 6, 2008 3:12 PM in response to Obama and Clinton Supporters Must Drop Out of the Race