Comments on: The (timely) death of outrage

By: Patterico

Patterico — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:27:19 +0000

I am getting a little lost with all this; anyway, it appears we have answered Ted’s question at the end of his post—perhaps even to his satisfaction, if his silence is any indication.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:22:36 +0000

JRoth wrote:

Oh, and about Roy Barnes? Really, Thorley, this is pathetic special pleading, even from you. Yes, elections are complicated, turn on many issues, blah freaking blah,

You see, one of the problems with interjecting yourself into a debate between two other people is that you miss out on what the original question was. Matt Weiner alleged that Roy Barnes lost the race over the flap over the flag. I pointed out that it did not seem clear because (a) his opponent only offered lukewarm differences on the issue (calling for a referendum and later backing away from it) and (b) there were a number of other high-profile issues such as educational differences, (c) a popular president stumping in the State after carrying it handily in 2000 and (d) the synergy from a highly targeted Senate race. We had much the same thing here in Minnesota in 2002 with Bush stumping for Norm Coleman who was the primary focus of our party’s efforts in the midterm elections and who benefited Tim Pawlenty with some synergy when the later was unable to do much campaigning. But I’m sorry if regarding elections as something more complicated then a single high-profile issue is boring to you.

but, as the Washington Times (part of the liberal media conspiracy maybe?) put it on Nov. 7, 2002: “Georgia boots Barnes, elects Republican over flag change”

So what? In case it has escaped your notice, most media outlets tend to try and boil down stories in a way that will be understandable to their audience. Unfortunately it sometimes means they over-simplify and go with a misleading account of the story that focuses on something exciting and high-profile like the Confederate flag! over more mundane things like explaining synergy between parallel races. The problem is that the headlines sometimes don’t reflect the substance of the story (sort of like the headlines about the Day report saying we have not found WMDs in Iraq while it clearly points to evidence of WMD programs) such as the following tidbit from the story (click on my name to go to link to the entire story):

Mr. Barnes conceded the role of the flag change in his defeat. “The flag did have something to do with it,” the Democrat said. “I think it brought out a white rural vote.”
In fact, the strongest anti-Barnes margins were in Atlanta’s prosperous suburban counties. Mr. Perdue got 77 percent of the vote in Forsyth County, 71 percent in Cherokee, 69 percent in Paulding, 62 percent in Gwinnett, and even got 54 percent in Mr. Barnes’ native Cobb County. (emphasis added)

I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with demographics of Georgia, but it seems to me that if the State flag was an issue that polled highly in rural areas but Perdue got his strongest support from wealthier suburban areas (unless Georgia’s last election had more rural than surburban voters, but I don’t think that’s the case) then it seems rather dubious to credit (or blame) the flag issue on the election. Again not saying it was not an issue (which was never the question), I just doubt it was quite the issue some would like to imagine it.

I won’t bother with dissecting the ways in which Thorley and others here are implicitly comparing MEChA, an inclusionist group, some of whose members have used exclusionist rhetoric, with groups like the CCC that publicly use racist rhetoric, such as where its Web site warns that blacks may “burn down your cities” and Third World immigrants are “bringing their inferior cultures.”

Examples of rhetoric from the “inclusionist group” MEChA’s El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán:

In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal “gringo” invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our hearts. Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner “gabacho” who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlán. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada. (which translates to “By the Race, everything. Outside the Race, nothing.” )

Naturally of course we should not consider this to be a racist group afterall JRoth told us they were “inclusionist” right?

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:21:31 +0000

JRoth wrote:

Thorley, are you aware that you’re posting this slander on the Internet, which provides people with the facts to counter your misdirection?

Are you aware that if you want to accuse me of slander then it might help if you could actually post something which actually proves anything I wrote was false?

Re: Al Gore, Sr. (oh, and cute rhetoric, calling the Honorable Vice President of the United States a “wannabe”):

Thanks, actually I refer to all non-incumbent presidential candidates as “presidential wannabes” (okay just those from the other side ;) ) including then Governor Clinton. As far as trying to refer to Al Gore as “honorable” – I appreciate good humor. It is almost as funny as calling Howard Dean a “fiscal conservative” while he nearly tripled his State’s budget or Joseph Lieberman a “man of integrity” as he does a 180 on nearly every sensible political position he once had. Regarding the Daily Howler articles, while I appreciate that you found a couple of Gore admirers (the authors not the publisher) who wrote a puff piece on his father (or rather the son since the authors would evidently have us believe that young Mr. Gore took time off from growing tobacco and helping Hubert Humphrey write his acceptance speech to also direct his father on “civil rights” legislation), I noticed that you didn’t bother to actually talk about the point I raised, namely the elder’s sponsoring of an amendment to allow schools to continue segregation and still receive federal funds. In order to make a charge of “slander” stick, you might actually want to find something that shows that this was not true. I’ll take it from your non-response that you couldn’t because it is true. As far as the rest of his record, let’s just say he did cast the votes he did and sponsored two black kids for admission to the military. So what? When Strom Thurmond was calling for the “right” of State’s to ignore the Fourteenth Amendment and continue segregation, he was also pushing to abolish the poll tax and to make sure that the black schools were “equal” as well as “separate.” Or more importantly, Goldwater who voted for pretty much every major piece of civil rights legislation except for the 1964 CRA (opposing it on grounds of freedom of association) and who voted against the Gore amendment clearly has a better record on “civil rights” then Gore Sr. (not that it stopped the much overrated MLK Jr. from insinuating that he was a Nazi). Funny how the old double-standard works. As far as later regretting his vote, well good for him (although it was the correct vote albeit for the wrong reason) but still, so what? Both Strom Thurmond and George Wallace (who actually started out as pro-civil rights before he ran as a segregationist) also said they regretted their earlier positions as well. That does not mean they were any less segregationists. I just don’t buy giving Al Gore Senior a pass merely because his son wanted to invent a compelling life story to sell to the voters (much like his phony vow on his sister’s death bed to fight tobacco companies years before he bragged about his involvement in the business during his first presidential bid). But on to Georgia.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:18:19 +0000

Matt Weiner wrote:

It doesn’t matter whether the flag issue was decisive in Barnes’ defeat.

Actually it does when you’re claiming that that was the reason he lost his bid for reelection as you did in your original post.

You insinuated that criticism about the Confederate flag is directed exclusively at GOP administrations. The Barnes case shows you’re wrong—whether or not it was the decisive issue, it was an issue.

Not really, in my original post I spoke of “outrage” over the Confederate flag as in the “outrage” that it is flying or part of it may be incorporated in some State flags. If you want to argue that while George W Bush is asked about it (even though he never flew it while governor) while Al Gore and Bill Clinton (both who whom served in office in States that flew it proudly) is not somehow a double-standard, go for it.

Also: Only my friends are allowed to call me by my unadorned last name.

So is that why you took the liberty of addressing me by my first name in your last post? ;) (BTW: I had actually typed “Matt Wiener wrote” before I copied and pasted it in the posting box, the “Matt” seems to have not been copied over and the misspelling of the last name was entirely my own fault as well).

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:17:20 +0000

Ted Barlowe wrote:

1. The NAACP is racist? Presumably the NAACP wasn’t racist in the 40s, when Strom Thurmond was running on a pro-segregation ticket and Jim Crow was the law of the land. Nor in the 60s, during the civil rights era. Your other comments seem to indicate that those were honorable battles. When did they become racist?

I don’t have an exact date (and I do not agree that merely because many of their opponents were racist in the late 1940s and 1960s, that somehow they necessarily were not – otherwise then any “pro white” group who opposed affirmative action while supporting Jim Crow could to get the same pass since their position it the mirror of the NAACP) but it is pretty clear from their support of racial preferences and setasides that they are just as repugnant as their former adversaries who wanted much the same but for caucasians. I do agree that much of the early “civil rights” movement was honorable in so far as it meant upholding the equal protection clause and abolishing ridiculous municipal and State laws (some of it such as forced busing and having the courts control redistricting is debatable). However many of the people who may have been on the right side of that issue forty years ago when it was about abolishing Jim Crow are now clearly on the wrong side of the issue when it comes to racial preferences and setasides.

2. To say MEChA fielded Bustamante as a candidate is crazy. Bustamante was a member 30 years ago. If I ran for office, it wouldn’t make sense to say that the Cub Scouts were fielding a candidate.

I’ll concede the point although I think it is nit-picking since it is not uncommon for people with controversial organizational ties to have it linked to them whenever they run for office. AFAIK the cub scouts are really only controversial among some of the more militant members of the homosexual privileges and anti-free association crowd though.

3. If you think that MEChA is an openly racist group, the equivalent of the CCC, why aren’t you concerned that it’s got 300 chapters indoctrinating students all over the country? Why does it only become an issue when there’s a politician to discredit?

As a couple of earlier posters pointed out, they lost when Cruz Bustamante did and really are probably not in a position to do much. If something surfaces again (and I’m sure you’ll keep us abreast with a new thread), then I think it will time to see what needs to be done. Until then, there are other more pressing issues such as continuing to successfully wage the War and trying to stop this awful prescription drug program to deal with.

It seems like you’re saying that outrage against MEChA was indeed manufactured for political gain, but that Democrats do it too.

Oh I think some of it was blown up – just as the confederate flag and Trent Lott’s foolish comments at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party were overblown. The difference though is that Bustamante was asked to repudiate some of the more radical positions of MEChA and he didn’t. Had he done so, it would have been over. Since he didn’t and he claims membership in a political party with a long history including its current practice of supporting racial discrimination, going after him on this was perfectly valid. Also it does help to erode the popular double-standard that it is okay to belong to a racist organization provided you’re either a left-wing Democrat, a member of a non-caucasian ethnic group or both. Frankly anyone who is a serious anti-racist should have applauded bringing down Bustamante unless they merely oppose racism from members of some groups but not others.

By: karenr

karenr — Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:28:48 +0000

Ted – Thanks for the welcome. I have no special knowledge about MEChA other than my contacts with the local high school chapter. My curiosity concerning this subject is based on trying to understand some of our local politics better. I don’t worry much about militancy among the MEChA students here, except for a few crackpot ideas and low-level anti-anglo sentiment which could become more pronounced at the college level. Student apathy is a much bigger problem here than is student militancy. It is a different story with some of the adult backers of the MEChA and bilingual education programs. A couple of years ago, our mostly-Latino town was nearly ripped apart by a group of activists who really seemed to take parts of “El Plan de Aztlan” to heart. We lost a lot of good people. The story is too complex to relate here, but much of the emphasis seemed to be on providing employment for bilingual teachers, whether or not they had full credentials. At the present time, the influence of the activists has been lessened, though the school system remains in turmoil. Some non-militant Latinos have won seats in town government. A couple of the real “true believer” activists have moved on to greener pastures. State English-testing requirements have lessened the damage done by the very poorly-designed bilingual programs. Some of the activists had effectively controlled these programs by shouting down anyone who suggested program modifications, let alone language immersion, as a racist. I still see kids lose English proficiency they had developed in preschool and kindergarten as they move into mostly-Spanish bilingual classes in first and second grades. Kids who spoke to each other and to me in English when they were in kindergarten now speak to me in Spanish. When they can be coaxed into speaking English, I notice that some have developed accents they did not have in kindergarten. One teacher last year had maps of Aztlan and Mexico, along with Aztec religious stories, on the wall. This may not be the friendliest environment for non-Mexican immigrant kids. The kids in these classes generally form deeper bonds with each other and their teachers than the “mainstream” kids, and they self-segregate from other students. One positive aspect of the local MEChA program is that it seems to establish more social connections at the high school level between first-generation immigrant kids who were put into bilingual programs and “mainstreamed” Latino kids. But the identity politics promoted by MEChA and bilingual ed. proponents also have negative effects on kids. I have seen fourth-grade boys fighting in the (mostly English in this grade) ESL classes about whether Mexican or Arab culture is better. There is no mention of a possibility that there might be a distinctive American culture. And some older Arab and Punjabi immigrant kids in ESL classes seem to be picking up almost as much Spanish as English. I am all for kids learning two or three languages. But in my experience, immersion is the best method, particularly when spoken language is emphasized at an early age. When “the path of least resistance” allows kids to continue speaking to teachers in their native language, they will generally learn less of the second language. This seems to be what Bustamante’s buddy Nativo Lopez wants.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:53:13 +0000

Ted, I didn’t call you a socialist. I have no idea what you are. I don’t know anything about you other than what I have read in this comment thread. I said Xrlq had said everything I would have said—not that I agreed with everything he said. All trout are fish; all fish are not trout. Direct your anger at Xrlq on that issue. Appreciate the forthright concession that you misrepresented what Breaker said. I’ll accept your explanation for what you said about Breaker’s “common sense” comment. Your argument is that, to the extent one claims their vote is a matter of common sense, they implicitly accuse others of lacking common sense, when instead they should say “I disagree.” I think it’s a fair point. However, you could have been a little more clear up front about why you were offended. Remember what you said: “We’ve just handed the governorship of the most populous state in the Union to a model-turned-actor with no political experience and no plans. If that represents ‘common sense’ to you, I don’t think that you and I can profitably communicate.” I submit that the average person reading that statement will not take it to say, in essence: “Breaker, why don’t you just say we disagree, rather than claiming that your opinions alone show ‘common sense’?” Rather, especially given your mocking description of Arnold, many people would take your statement to say, in essence: “Breaker, your vote was for an idiot, so I’m not the one who lacks common sense, you are.” If the essence of your statement was to communicate the former and not the latter, you failed (at least the first time around). If we can get back to the original point—and here is where I absolutely do agree with Xrlq—surely it is not unreasonable to become more concerned about MEChA when someone 1) won’t repudiate its most onerous connotations and 2) might win high political office. When neither of those conditions are true, people can worry about other things without being called hypocritical, can’t they? That doesn’t take them outside the sphere of reasonable people, does it?

By: Breaker

Breaker — Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:40:53 +0000

Ah so . . . I am enlightened. The misunderstood one misunderstood another, does not inquire into the deep meaning of “common sense”, shoots off perjoratives. Ah . . . so much to defend, so much to project, so little to communicate.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:38:47 +0000

Patterico, He said “the recall,” and I interpreted it as saying “Arnold’s victory in the recall.” Fair enough; he might have meant only the recall process, not the outcome. Point for Breaker, shame on me. (I still don’t agree; I think the process was a goddamn circus, not a triumph of common sense. But you’re right that that’s a different issue.) You say: “I guess you mean that you can communicate with an Arnold voter, as long as that voter believes that his vote for Arnold was not grounded in common sense. Gotcha.” But I don’t think that my votes are grounded in common sense. Do you? What do you mean when you say “common sense”? I’m serious. When I use it, I mean that what I’m talking about should be fairly obvious, and that honest people who are reasonably aware of the facts should probably agree on it. To me, it’s insulting to hear that I’m on the wrong side of a “common sense” issue; it tells me that the person saying it has placed me out of the sphere of reasonable people. So I would never say that my votes are a matter of “common sense.” I’d say that they’re a matter of political opinion, and that in almost every race, intelligent people can vote differently than me. It’s a matter of judgement, of values, of enlightened self-interest. It’s almost never a matter of “common sense”. And as far as intentially misunderstanding, it takes a special kind of misunderstanding to go from “I don’t think that Arnold should be governor” (what I said) to “Ted thinks he can’t talk to any Arnold voter” (what he pretends I said), and then segue into a fantasy. Finally, I’m not a socialist, and I get fucking sick and tired and being told that I am. OK?

By: Breaker

Breaker — Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:20:09 +0000

Mr. Barlow, You are waffling, bluffing and blustering. Let’s parse your logic, or lack of logic. First you state pejoratively that you cannot communicate with me because I stated voting for Mr. Schwarzenegger was “common sense” without serious inquiry of what makes the decision common sense or not. Instead you bluster that: actor + no prior government role = disqualified. In your response to my friend xrlq, by negative implication you then say that you could communicate with some category of voters for Mr. Schwarzenegger. What is the category or paraphrasing, your words the distinguishing feature of those with whom you can communicate? It is not people who pondered the common sense of the decision because in your rely to xrlq, you repeat your scorn on anyone who thinks voting for Mr. Schwarzenegger made common sense. So in your back handed logic, you can only communicate with voters for Mr. Schwarzenegger who decided that their vote did not make common sense. In other words you “can” communicate with people who acted illogically and irrationally. So, is it worth any attempt at communicating with you? No, you want to communicate with illogical people – in other words, you are capable of communication only with other lefties that agree with you.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:40:09 +0000

Ted, Who’s misunderstanding whom? My contention: you unfairly represented what Breaker said, while Xrlq fairly represented what you said. Let’s go to the tape: Breaker said: “The Recall was a huge defeat for leftists and a huge win for common sense.” You seemed to be “intentionally misunderstanding” him by pretending he had said electing Arnold was just common sense. There’s a distinction there, no? Now for what you said: “We’ve just handed the governorship of the most populous state in the Union to a model-turned-actor with no political experience and no plans. If that represents ‘common sense’ to you, I don’t think that you and I can profitably communicate.” You now claim: “I didn’t say that I can’t profitably communicate with any Arnold voter.” Hmm. I guess you mean that you can communicate with an Arnold voter, as long as that voter believes that his vote for Arnold was not grounded in common sense. Gotcha. Was that a real serious misunderstanding on Xrlq’s part? By the way, you also assert that Xrlq seems to have “intentionally” misunderstood you. How are you able to divine this? I presume it is because he disagrees with you politically—ergo he has bad motives? Otherwise, how in the h-e-double hockey sticks do you know it was “intentional” (assuming he misunderstood you at all, which it is evident he did not). Just some thoughts on people misunderstanding people.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:05:54 +0000

Xrlq, You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding me. I didn’t say that I can’t profitably communicate with any Arnold voter. I sure can. But to say that it’s only “common sense” to vote for an actor who’s never been in government is laughable. There’s a distinction there. Karenr, it sounds like you actually know something about MEChA. Good to have you here.

By: KarenR

KarenR — Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:33:41 +0000

There may a some positive residual developments from the flap over Bustamante and MEChA. For example: 1. MEChA advisor Rodolfo Acuna may be a little more careful about posting articles on La Voz de Aztlan after he tried to distance MEChA from this anti-semetic and anti-homosexual website in his MEChA defense. But MEChA cheerleader Nativo Lopez, for whom Bustamante campaigned, posted a column there even after the Bustamante story made this website an issue. Maybe some people will take a harder look at his influence in politics, including the reports of coercive tactics by his supporters in Santa Ana. 2. It has become clear that MEChA chapters vary widely in their philosophies and actions. I would venture to guess than most differences between chapters are based on the philosophies of specific faculty advisors. Clarity is a good thing. Maybe some Mechistas, or their parents, will start taking a deeper look at specific MEChA chapters. 3. Juan Esparza Loera is editor of “Vida en el Valle”. After having written a glowing piece in the Fresno Bee about a high school MEChA chapter, he wrote another piece calling on MEChA chapters to remove “divisive language” from their Web sites. Or, Mechistas who do not agree with such “divisive language” might consider changing the name of their chapter to something which more closely reflects their actual mission. I am still puzzled by the appeal of a ‘60s name like, “Movemiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan”. I am not sure that changing “Chicano” to “Xicano” and MEChA to MEXA, as has reportedly been proposed, is a big improvement. But it is easier to type. 4. The publicity helps explain why, in our town politics or in the workplace (particularly in State jobs), we sometimes encounter an adult Latino or two who openly repeats variations on slogans like “Por La Raza todo, fuera de La Raza nada” . And you start to wonder whether the high school MEChA chapter might have something to do with a student who thinks that only people of European descent can become tyrants in modern times (even though he looks pretty European himself).

By: Patterico

Patterico — Thu, 16 Oct 2003 06:10:53 +0000

Wow. I was going to weigh in, but Xrlq leaves nothing else to say.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 16 Oct 2003 03:15:23 +0000

“If I thought that there were 300 chapters of the KKK on college campuses agitating for a violent revolt in order to claim their own Aryan nation, I’d see this as a continuing issue even after an election was over. So… if people believed what they were saying, where did the concern about MEChA go?” The way of BustaMEChA’s political career, of course. A few dedicated souls expend a great deal of energy tracking every two-bit hate group on the planet, but most of us have better things to do than lose sleep over what idiotic agenda their talking about at our local Communist Party, MEChA, Klan or Nazi Party meeting. It simply does not matter. Until, of course, an individual Klansman comes dangerously close to becoming governor of Louisiana or an individual MEChista comes dangerously close to becoming governor of California. Then it matters. Since you are so sure you can’t “profitably communicate” with the overwhelming majority of Californians who didn’t vote the way you enlightened folk wanted them to, I’d suggest you get together with the separatists up in the Bay Area. You guys can have your own little socialist paradise up there, and the rest of the state will finally be rid of the “fruits and nuts” label that makes us the laughingstock of the rest of the country. Deal?