The (timely) death of outrage

I’ve heard of studies that show that stories in the media about homelessness are more common during Republican presidencies than Democratic ones, and I’m prepared to believe that they’re true. But homeless organizations didn’t shut their doors when Clinton was elected; they keep on fundraising and administering services regardless of what’s going on politically. My favorite local group, the Houston End Hunger Network, began during the second term of Clinton’s presidency. Many of the most long-running homelessness programs are run by religious organizations, who are unlikely to spin anti-Republican. I don’t think that advocates for the homeless can fairly be accused of the same sort of (apparent) cynicism about the issue.

I don’t know the first thing about MECHA. But for the sake of argument… the KKK didn’t die in a day. It took a very long time for opposition specifically directed at the KKK (and similar hate groups) to form and have an effect. Collection action problems are the issue here….

I would look for MECHA to play a role in future elections as candidates use it as a wedge issue against Hispanic candidates. It’s like trying to get Republicans to repudiate the John Birch society, Bob Jones University, etc…. A tricky issue when appealing to the primary electoral base is important.

The biggest difference between MEChA and the KKK is that the KKK was responsible for specific acts of violence. That’s why opposition to the KKK was justified. Non-violent racial separatists (like MEChA) may be ideologically distasteful, but I wouldn’t actively oppose their right to exist. I would feel the same way about white racist groups.

It’s quite different to oppose a candidate from such a group. But now that the election is over, what’s the point in attacking MEChA? They’ve been around for decades and they haven’t really accomplished anything. Without Bustamante running for governor, they’re not much of a threat.

The concern went back into Karl’s Bag of Trix, along with worries about extramarital affairs, abuse of a position of power, etc etc. In its place, we’ve been treated to discourse on the importance of civility toward our (Republican, of course) leaders. And redistricting in Texas. There’s nothing those people won’t do to gain and keep power.

I’d suggest that a certain amount of consciousness raising has taken place about an agenda that many find objectionable and dangerous. It involves sensitive issues which can reasonably be argued, like illegal immigration, borders, American identity, citizenship, the melting pot. With MEChA motives in the mix, policies ‘welcoming’ illegals will have stronger opposition. Provision of drivers licenses is one example.

The problems presented by the porous borders of the Southwest preceded any general awareness of MEChA (and Bustamente’s sympathies). The concern has not gone away; indeed, it has been heightened. But it will be addressed through policy.

Xavier wrote:

It’s quite different to oppose a candidate from such a group. But now that the election is over, what’s the point in attacking MEChA? They’ve been around for decades and they haven’t really accomplished anything. Without Bustamante running for governor, they’re not much of a threat.

Exactly and more importantly the message has been sent. Just as it is now no longer acceptable for caucasian politicians to have membership in racist organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens, it is just as unacceptable for Latino politicians to have membership in equally racist groups like MEChA.

BTW MEChA is far more analogous to racist hate groups like the Nation of Islam because it has not actually engaged in violence (KKK, Black Panthers) but has more inflammatory racist rhetoric then other racialist groups who are just as racist (CCC, NAACP, La Raza). Still while each of them have the “right” to exist unless or until they break the law, they should still be opposed not merely when they field political candidates.

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

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

From The Daily Howler (Sorry for long excerpt):

On Thursday, we gave you the account of Gore Senior’s career from Bob Zelnick’s bio of Gore. (Zelnick’s book was published by the conservative publisher Regnery.) According to Zelnick, Gore Senior’s “courage and decency” on civil rights “would inspire later generations of southerners who sought to purge the region of its terrible racial heritage” (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/12/02). In his own Gore bio, The Prince of Tennessee, David Maraniss also hailed Gore Senior’s civil rights leadership. “Many of the deepest tensions of American race relations were played out during the long career of Sen. Gore, whose opposition to the segregated ways of his native South angered many of his constituents and eventually led to his political demise,” he wrote. Then he described Al Gore’s dad at the start of his Senate career:

MARANISS: [H]ere is Sen. Gore on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1956, taking a dramatic stand against the Southern Manifesto, calling it “the most spurious, inane, insulting” thing he has ever seen and declaiming “Hell no!” while waving away the segregationist document placed before him by colleague Strom Thurmond….

With every gesture Gore made in support of civil rights came a mailbag of angry letters from segregationists. One year after denouncing the manifesto, he voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act and further enraged racist constituents by nominating two young black students from Memphis for appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121402.shtml

And regarding that 1964 vote (the only peg on which you can hang your dishonest argument:

MARANISS AND NAKASHIMA: [Sen. Gore] won reelection that fall [1964] and returned to Washington, where from then on he acted like an unflinching Southern progressive attuned to the needs of his black constituents. He voted for the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act, opposed President Nixon’s two Southern nominees for the Supreme Court…and eventually apologized for his 1964 vote, calling it the biggest mistake of his career. All during that time he took a pounding from segregationists and real estate interests who opposed the open housing laws.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h051200_1.shtml

There’s more, but I think this is sufficient to show that your depiction of Sen Gore, Sr. is misleading. I might even suggest that it calls your Motive into question, but Prof. Kling wouldn’t like that.

It’s lurking with the concern for sexual harassment that was rife in conservative commentary circa 1998.

Close; try “libidinous”.

God, this is hilarious. Everyone dicusses Mecha in the 3rd person, so obviously no one admits to any personal involvement with the group, good or bad. The issue isn’t simple: it is not unusual to hear of Mecha being credited for campaigning for better treatment of Latinos in academia during its history — for example, the creation of the Tutoring and Learning Center at UTEP is commonly accredited to their agitation. Many students explore Mecha without any thought of racism, they just want to be part of the Mexican-American student organization; thus you cannot judge Hispanics based on an affiliation, only on their actions. Further, it will also vary from place to place. Mexican-Americans from El Paso are different from Mexican-Americans from San Antonio are different from Chicanos from California . . . (the name change is on purpose).

Mecha is a non-issue because not even Mexican-Americans take it too seriously, not anything like the NAACP for African-Americans. We’re too busy getting by.

Breaker,

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.

Aramis,

You’re exactly right; it’s kind of embarassing how the discussion of MEChA has been conducted with little more than Google searches as our tools. I hope to remedy that in the near future. (I don’t know if you know this, but I did my best on this issue here: https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/000426.html

Thomas,

Conservative critics of MEChA frequently said that they were the moral equivalent of the Klan. Glenn Reynolds compared the opposition to MEChA to opposition to Jim Crow. I thought they were wrong, and I said so. If they had changed their minds, you would have a point. But they didn’t- I never saw a conservative say “I was wrong, MEChA doesn’t deserve to be called a hate group”.

I’m saying that the outrage about MEChA was disengenuous and tactical. It was a ploy that energized the base of people who have unadmirable thoughts about Latinos. And if I’m wrong, and folks actually believed that there are 300 chapters of “fascist hatemongers” planning to claim the Southwest as an independent Anglo-free country, I’d expect to see some continuing interest in these dangerous people.

Please let me know if that’s not clear; I really don’t think that I’m the one contradicting myself here.

Ted: Oh, goodie a reflexive and gratuitous diss of the Governator. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a very intelligent and driven leader and communicator. Please continue to underestimate him as well as all of your other philosophical foes – we gain, you lose.

You also scorn the good people of California.

I’m saying that the outrage about MEChA was disingenuous and tactical. It was a ploy that energized the base of people who have unadmirable thoughts about Latinos.

I do not know where you reside so, I don’t know if you are geographically remote and just don’t know what happens in California or you suffer from a more serious separation from reality.

Serious criticism of MEChA as a racist and anti-American organization was not and is not directed discrimination of Latinos. Latinos are just people – most good, some bad and some leftist communist Mechistas of the hard core variety and 41% Latino voters voted for either Schwarzenegger or McClintock. Despite his milquetoast veneer, Bustamante was and is a leftist of the hard core.

MEChA is an organization that exists on several levels – just like any sophisticated leftist front organization. At the base level, they sing songs and tutor students. On top they, wish for an Hugo Chavez.

Criticism of MEChA is not anti-Latino. Latinos are OK. Criticism of MEChA is anti-Leftist. Leftists are not OK. Got it? OK!

“Leftists are not OK. Got it? OK!”

Thanks, breaker, for clarifying that you are, in fact, an intolerant person who believes dissent to be unacceptable. I suppose that it works out well for you that you are now governed by a close personal friend of Kurt Waldheim, who also did not approve of Leftists, or other dissenters.

I can’t help but notice that your defense of a “reflexive and gratuitous diss of the Governator” [are you serious in calling him such an infantile thing? Good grief…] doesn’t address Ted’s substantive criticism, which is that he has neither experience nor (publicly stated) plans. You respond that he’s smart and a good communicator. Excellent. I look forward to his communicating any credible policies or plans – he certainly didn’t bother during the election. Why should he have, when fools like you would vote for governor like it was Class President.

Schwarzenegger’s few stated plans for resolving the budget deficit do not resolve it. In fact, his plans would increase its size. He may be smart, but the evidence indicates that at least 55% of Californians who voted last week are not.

“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?

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).

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.