Stephen F. Hayes details the hypocrisy of the Democrats' attacks on Lott and the Republicans. They make much of the Republicans' "Southern Strategy" with no mention whatever of their own "African American Strategy," in which black leaders mau-mau the R's as racists at every turn, including that horrible campaign ad sponsored by the NAACP against Bush.
Strutting and fretting in an insane world.
Friday, December 27, 2002
Thursday, December 26, 2002
Patty Murray's outrageous remarks about bin Laden receive no coverage in the media. Once again we see how the Democrats can only see bad conduct on the other side of the aisle. This hypocrisy is what we witnessed during the Clinton impeachment hearings when they complained that the Republicans weren't being "bipartisan." Of course, they were bipartisan during Watergate, because Nixon was guilty. And they were bipartisan recently when they removed Trent Lott as Senate Majority Leader. But bipartisanship only goes one way. I don't think Patty Murray should resign her office, but I would expect that those in the media who routinely denigrate George Bush's intelligence and leadership and demanded that Senator Lott resign, would not ignore something as idiotic as this, or the Baghdad Boys. Apparently the Republicans just have higher standards.
Bipartisanship is an interesting concept, when used as a political argument. It can only exist across party lines, so whenever a dispute splits on party lines, neither side is being bipartisan. But when it is used as a self-evidently good thing and the basis of an accusation, it means nothing more than "You should agree with us." Of course, this begs the question of why those demanding bipartisanship don't abandon their party and join the other side. None of the Democrats, like Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Boxer, or seemed to see the contradiction inherent in the charge.
Here in Utah, the Republicans control everything except one congressional district and Carbon County. The Democrats are always complaining that we don't have a two-party system, by which they mean, apparently, that more people should support candidates they don't agree with just for the sake of fairness. That's a new definition of democracy to me. Of course, when fairness is the test of everything as it is with the socialists on the left, it must seem like a brilliant argument.
Wednesday, December 25, 2002
Merry Christmas! My thoughts are wilth the brave men and women serving overseas and with all the folks in hospitals and nursing homes, as well as those who are without homes, heat, food or warm clothing. I met a young man today who came from the Ukraine to serve a Mormon mission in Utah. I pray for all those who are serving the Lord today, and those who serve God by serving his children.
If more of us would read the teachings of Jesus and spend more time trying to emulate him, this would be a better world. There are many who do so all around us, but they don't get much press. They are the ones who express their charity in good works without fanfare, who live good lives and raise good families.
Monday, December 23, 2002
There seems to be a spate of commentary today telling us that Republicans must repudiate racism. It would be be great for Democrats if the Republicans would preoccupy them with a series of show trials to prove to skeptics that racism will not be allowed to exist in the party. Free speech is protected, but free thought is not? I don't know if I'd vote Republican if I were black, but I hope I'd have the sense to realize that I was being rolled by the Dems. If the Republicans are supposed to be ashamed of Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond, what does that say about the Democrats' toleration of Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and other southern Democrats? The fact is that when someone runs as a member of your party and wins, and isn't David Duke, you don't turn your back on him. The Democrats accepted Cynthia McKinney--is that their Southern Strategy?
The most ludicrous part of the Lott brouhaha is the effort by the Clintons to claim that we're still living in the bad old days. I think that race is going to be used as a wedge or a club until we get used to living in a color blind society. That means an end to racial preferences and quotas and to all the ways that people seek to milk the system by claiming that they are victims. After being a public defender, I came to see the "everybody's out to get me" attitude as a road to criminal thinking and failure. It's the kind of thing that we have to take seriously and remedy when it's true, but it is rarely a good way for an individual to view himself and his own life. The worst thing one can do is to give himself excuses, even when they're real, because he'll be defeated from the start. I would support affirmative action that gave school choice to poor people and more money for schools which produce results, to help minorities to compete with others of the same playing field. But the most important thing they can do for themselves is to instill the values of education and academic achievement in their children. I read a study some years ago in Scientific American which sought to understand why the children of Vietnamese "boat people" who arrived in this country with nothing and not speaking English were graduating disproportionately in the top quarter of their high school classes. The authors concluded that the biggest factor was that the parents pushed education, doing the chores so that the kids could do their homework, with the older siblings helping the younger.
We've heard about the subtle racism of low expectations. Now let's see some of the advantages of high expectations.