Attacking Big Corporation as a GOP Campaign Issue

See? It’s not just me any more – Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) weighs in on how the GOP can leverage a bit of anti-corporatism for electoral victory:

…the fact is that many big businesses are unpopular with the public, aligned with the Democrats, and wide open for attack. And after eight years of the Obama administration’s naked cronyism and support of Wall Street even as the middle class has suffered, the opportunities are there.

One of the most appealing targets would be the tech industry’s wage-suppressing hiring habits. Not only have tech giants like Apple and Google engaged in what a federal court called an “overarching conspiracy” to prevent wage competition, but Silicon Valley firms also abuse H-1B visas to bring in immigrant competition at lower wages, a practice that’s now spreading to other industries. (In Los Angeles, Southern California Edison is firing workers and replacing them with immigrants now)…

Reynolds goes on to note how big corporations – especially big tech – are abusing the H1-B visa program to get rid of well-paid American workers and bring in low-paid foreigners, thus abusing both Americans and foreigners in the name of increased corporate profits. That is just one in a very long line of issues where Big Corporation is working against the United States. We on the GOP side have got to wrap our minds around the fact that big anything is bad. Once a concentration of power and wealth exceeds a certain size, it becomes baleful…and must be controlled carefully, lest is wreck everything. We understand this regarding things like the Department of Education, but we’ve failed to understand that General Motors is just like the Department of Education…an bureaucratic behemoth most interested in using raw, political power to preserve itself.

It is the free market we must defend – not those who are on top of the market and who are abusing their position. That the leaders of these corporations also largely support Democrats (or are at least de-facto liberals), just makes attacking them doubly advantageous for us. It becomes best of all when we realize that a lot of people who vote liberal (but who are not particularly liberal, themselves) can be moved to vote for us when we do this. Defending the worker against ruthless exploitation by Big Tech is just a splendid way to move the needle in our favor…let Democrats defend the H1-B visa program, we’ll defend the workers.

We have a grand opportunity to take the abysmal failure of the Obama years and use it to destroy liberalism as a political force forever. All we have to do is dare to take it.

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “Attacking Big Corporation as a GOP Campaign Issue

  1. Retired Spook March 23, 2015 / 12:11 pm

    I think fighting corporate statism is one of the few, if not only area of common ground between the Left and Right. In his recent book, Unstoppable Ralph Nader makes a good case for it. I don’t agree with Nader on much of anything. To me he’s always come across as somewhat of a kook, but I think on this issue, he’s right on the money, although I would add the same caveat that the book reviewer does:

    That said, limited campaigns by convergent forces are possible. Mr. Nader has worked with conservatives on a host of matters: fighting corporate-statist alliances that abuse eminent domain; broadening the scope of freedom-of-information requests; limiting the government subsidy of insurance for nuclear power. To this list I would love to add another: Replacing our absurdist tax code with a flat tax, devoid of special deals and deductions. That one course of action would do a lot to stop the deal makers against whom Mr. Nader rails so effectively in”Unstoppable.” Ralph, if you’re listening, this is one point of convergence that would bring us together in perfect harmony.

    • M. Noonan March 23, 2015 / 12:26 pm

      The break up of the Bell telephone network shows the benefit of taking a behemoth and forcing it to be smaller companies. You and I are of an age when we can remember that you only called long distance if you really needed to – it was too expensive. Now we’ll talk to someone on the other side of the world without even thinking about it. Phone service is better and cheaper now that there are more and more companies providing the service. Because I’m a free-marketer, I’d never go the rout of just banning large corporations – but I would make the tax and regulatory boons of being small and mid-sized so large that only a dimwit would even think of having a large corporation. The system should be set up that once a company reaches a certain size, it would be more valuable as parts than as a whole…

      Nader has been on the side of the angels often – but, you’re right, he does get a bit into kookism. It is a hazard in all democratic societies. But, there is still much that someone like Nader and myself can agree upon – especially in the areas of limited government’s oppressive power and maximizing individual liberty.

      As for really cutting down government, I think I’ve identified the real solution: prohibit government debt. That might be the magic bullet. Government debt is immoral, you see? It removes consent from the governed. If we issue a 30 year bond today, then someone born as late as 2027 will have to pay it (being an adult in the last year of the bond). That is just plain and simple wrong. It is not for me to decide how the citizens of 2045 shall dispense the public funds. Or even the citizens of 2016 (I’m not there yet – and, God forbid, I may not be there…none of us being promised so much as the rest of today, let alone tomorrow). Government debt allows the government to buy support without asking anyone, today, to suffer any pain. If each time the government wanted to reward it’s cronies it had to come before the American people and either cancel a current program or ask for new taxes, it would become very difficult. To be sure, even without the issuance of debt, government is a monster (even the lowest tax burden we can imagine in the United States would probably still have the government dispensing nearly $3 trillion a year)…but adding debt to the mix makes it even more so, and robs our future. Imagine if Obama had not had the $8 trillion or so in debt he’s issued since taking office! It would be a much better United States in that case.

      Now, to be sure, getting to the point where government doesn’t issue debt is difficult – but I think it can be done. First off, of course, is to balance the budget and start paying off the debt we’ve got…but if we can start doing that, then we can start arguing that we shouldn’t issue any debt, ever.

    • tryvasty March 24, 2015 / 6:11 pm

      I agree that the consolidation of corporate power into fewer and fewer monolithic corporations is incredibly problematic, but now when money matters more than ever for elections, the opportunity to get voters by taking an anti-corporate stance is obviously being outweighed in politicians’ heads by fear of shrinking campaign chests. The democrats could make a very similar play with similar risks, and they aren’t taking the leap either.

      I’m somewhat at a loss for how to convince them to turn against their donors. It’s a problem that screams for the need for campaign finance reform to me, but even ignoring the Supreme Court weighing in already on the issue, that’s another suggestion that will similarly upset our politicians’ corporate overlords.

      I’d be careful about trying to hook larger changes like a flat tax on to what could otherwise be common ground, though. I highly doubt Nader would have a lot positive to say about a flat tax, but you might get a lot farther talking about simplifying the tax code without trying directly trying to shift where the tax burden falls. If we can avoid running headlong into the bigger, more ideological argument, I think there’s a lot of opportunity to clean up our tax system in a way that most Americans would find very positive.

      • M. Noonan March 24, 2015 / 6:32 pm

        The flaw in your plan is in your support for campaign finance reform – which puts the government in charge of expenditures of campaign funds and thus opens up a whole, new avenue where money can be used to corrupt the process. The government is not your friend – it is, in its best moments, a sad necessity…in its worst moments, it is a monstrous tyranny. Have as little to do with it as possible – and give it as small a scope for action as is practical for an orderly and free society.

        Money isn’t the problem – the problem is the use of money to get special favors from government. You can’t get money out of it – not ever. The reason for this is that as there is more than one way to skin a cat, so there is more than one way to bribe a politician. No matter how many layers of laws and regulations you place on it, money will find a way as long as the government is the dispenser of special privileges.

      • Cluster March 24, 2015 / 7:58 pm

        The money in politics is a direct result of the increasing regulatory actions taken by, and the tax discretion of the federal government and the elected politicians who more often than not retire as multi millionaires. Big government and big business thrive together.

      • M. Noonan March 24, 2015 / 8:25 pm

        Yep, and the more complex the tax and regulatory environment, the more the well-heeled get their way…they have the money to bribe while regular folks just get ground up.

      • Cluster March 24, 2015 / 8:13 pm

        Going back to the “trend of demographics” you referred to earlier – look at how much the liberal left has shrunk the Democratic Party. The only person being considered for the POTUS nomination is Hillary Clinton who is better known as Bill’s wife rather than her questionable success as Senator and SecState, and of whom is as far left politically as Obama. The only other person in consideration is the famous Native American Elizabeth Warren, who is politically just to the right of Chairman Mao. It is sad to see what has happened to JFK’s party.

      • tryvasty March 24, 2015 / 10:15 pm

        But I don’t know how you fix the use of money to get special favors from the government without removing the money. Money clearly wins elections, so if you have somebody running for office that isn’t willing to trade their support for campaign contributions, how do they beat somebody who is? Do we just cross our fingers and hope that someday voters aren’t so easily swayed by TV ads?

      • M. Noonan March 25, 2015 / 1:00 am

        You remove the power from the government – if, say, a city government doesn’t have the power to license taxis, shoe shines and hair stylists, then taxi, shoe shine and hair styling businesses will spend zero dollars trying to influence government.

      • tryvasty March 26, 2015 / 1:31 am

        But I don’t personally have the ability to remove that power from the government, and more importantly, the people who do have the ability to take away said power are the ones taking the bribes, and are also the ones who have the ability to give themselves the power back.

        If you take away the city’s power to grant boons to hair stylists, then hair stylists won’t stop contributing to politicians, they’ll just contribute to the politicians who promise them that they will remove the restriction preventing them from granting boons to hair stylists.

      • M. Noonan March 26, 2015 / 1:53 am

        And once the restrictions are removed, what need has the hairstylist to eat into profits by donating to politicians?

        It is difficult to break the log-jam – the first step was demonstrated by Scott Walker: end the ability of public sector unions to force their membership to belong. That will allow, over time, proposals to reduce the size of government to go forward – public sector unions always fighting most forcefully against any cuts in government size. The next step is more tricky – getting government to stop dispensing favors to well-heeled corporations. But as is noted in the article, that is the whole point of this exercise: to convince the GOP that their best interests are served by a clean break with Big Corporation. Let the Democrats – who are just as slavishly devoted to Big Corporation as the GOP Establishment – carry on with that. We go to the people and fight for them.

      • tryvasty March 27, 2015 / 1:23 am

        If you convinced them to be anti-corporate tomorrow, I suspect any gains they’d get by fighting for the little guy would get buried under their suddenly lack of ability to pay for campaigning. The Republican party obviously agrees with my assessment. I don’t see any reason for that to change until such time as we change the rules of how elections work in some way.

  2. Cluster March 25, 2015 / 8:44 am

    Off topic, but I just read this from liberal commentator Bill Press and realized that I stand corrected in my assessment of the Democratic field of POTUS candidates. Obviously, according to Bill, the field is quite strong. (warning – do not be consuming any carbonated drinks when reading)

    Plan B is a deep bench of potential candidates, led by Vice President Biden, whose resume is every bit as impressive as Clinton’s. Add Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio) or Amy Klobuchar (Minn.). Add independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), running as a Democrat. Add California Gov. Jerry Brown and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. Any one of them would make an outstanding candidate — and an outstanding president.

    • M. Noonan March 25, 2015 / 12:35 pm

      ROFL – but, let’s suppose that Press is right and all of these are exciting, vibrant candidates. They are still all alike as peas in a pod. Every last one of them is for federally funded abortion on demand. Every one of them is in favor of same-sex marriage. Every one of them in lock-step in favor of the global warming hoax. Every one of them favors increased taxes on “the rich” (really, on the middle class ’cause that’s where the money is…but they’ll never admit that). Every one of them will shill for any Big Corporation which donates to acceptable liberal causes. There is really nothing for them to argue about except over the best tactics for carrying out the exact same policies. Meanwhile, over on the GOP side, we’re going to have a massive battle of ideas where we try to hash out the best way to restore American greatness. This battle may, indeed, prove fatal to our hopes – but we’re going to have it, anyway, because ideas are important to us. Not so the left – ideas are banned: all they’ve got is a Party Line and a demand to enforce it.

      • tryvasty March 26, 2015 / 2:19 am

        So while we’re on the subject, can you talk about some of the GOP candidates and how they widely differ on the subjects you just picked out? After all, if it is a reasonable litmus test for the samey-ness of Democrats, it should be for Republicans as well, right?

      • Cluster March 26, 2015 / 11:10 am

        There are vast political differences between Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz. Jeb is an establishment, go along to get along kind of guy – basically Democrat light. Ted, who I will point out is of Cuban descent with the possibility of being the first Latino President (how cool would that be right? I mean as a leftist liberal who cares so much about ethnicity that has to have you excited), is a strict Constitutional conservative unfazed by the politically correct left.

        On the other hand, the list of potential Democratic candidates who Bill Press mentioned march in political lock step with each other and all seem to be very white and old, which must bother you.

      • M. Noonan March 26, 2015 / 11:39 pm

        We’re having a titanic struggle in the GOP – and everything is on the table save that the GOP is fundamentally a pro-life party…which is the only sane and just position to hold, anyways, and is increasingly the general opinion of the American people.

        We’re fighting over whether to be isolationist or interventionist.
        We’re fighting over whether to be capitalist or populist.
        We’re fighting over whether to be in favor of or opposed to same-sex marriage.
        We’re fighting over whether amnesty or deportation is the best answer to the illegal aliens.

        All of the GOP candidates fight over these and a score of other issues…and the battle is in no ways decided. We’ll see how it comes out – how it is settled and whether or not the ultimate GOP nominee can unite the party and go on to victory in 2016.

        Meanwhile, you’ll get Hillary…or Warren, or Biden, or Sanders…and there is nothing to fight about because they are all exactly the same.

      • tryvasty March 27, 2015 / 1:39 am

        I didn’t ask how they differed on whatever range of issues you want to bring up. I asked how they differ on specifically the issues you used to claim that all of the listed potential Democratic candidates were the same. Of course Democrats aren’t all the same any more than Republicans are (probably even less, is there any commitment like the Norquist pledge on their side of the isle that is nearly as hard line and universal), but you just tried to build a cherry-picked list to belittle the bad guys.

        I’m quickly realizing that there’s very little respect for logic or evidence around here, because you’ve decided that they are generally unnecessary when you just /know/ how the world is.

      • M. Noonan March 27, 2015 / 1:57 am

        Oh, for pity’s sake – get off your high horse. If you can’t be troubled to know the differences between, say, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee then that is your problem, not mine.

        Here’s a challenge for you – what is the difference between Hillary and Warren?

      • tryvasty March 28, 2015 / 3:13 am

        Hey now. If you get to pick your candidates to compare, I do, too. Can you tell the difference between Hillary Clinton and Steve Beshear?

        On a related note, if you guys are still having trouble figuring out what the Democratic party presidential field might look like, there are better ways than just listening to what candidates Bill Press would be excited about. The Wikipedia page is decently informative:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016

      • Cluster March 28, 2015 / 9:03 am

        My vote is for Vermin Supreme.

      • tryvasty March 28, 2015 / 2:25 pm

        It’s hard to fault you. I, too, would like a free pony.

  3. tryvasty March 26, 2015 / 2:18 am

    Since apparently comments are closed in the other threads, I’m just going to recommend reading the report on the Ferguson police force. The findings of the investigation make it pretty clear that the Brown shooting was a red herring, but also demonstrate pretty clearly to me that the residents of the city had strong reasons to be suspicious of their police force.

    My favorite little gem:

    “African-American drivers were twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during traffic stops, but 26% less likely to be found in possession of contraband.”

    And there are just piles of other indicators that our justice system is discriminatory.

    Blacks are about equally likely to engage in drug offenses, but several times more likely to be arrested for it:

    http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/02/us-drug-arrests-skewed-race

    They get sentenced to 20% longer terms:

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002

    Hell, even though it was reduced in 2010 (thanks Obama!), there’s still a large disparity in how the government treats cocaine vs. crack, even though the largest effective difference between the two is the racial demographic of users:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act

    If you really think that racism is a non-issue in general or even just in our justice system, you’re pretty divorced from reality. If you were ever curious why black people tend to ignore what you think are your brilliant reasons for why blacks should be conservative, it’s probably because when you deny the systemic racism that they can see plainly in their day to day lives, you sound a lot you’re accusing an entire race of causing their own problems because of a shared, unfounded victim mentality.

    But feel free to keep at it. I’ll be happy to watch the GOP continue to be the party of old, white men as the country becomes less and less white.

    • Cluster March 26, 2015 / 11:03 am

      I’ll be happy to watch the GOP continue to be the party of old, white men as the country becomes less and less white.

      And the race and ageist cards are played. I think we all knew it was only a matter of time and you have definitely solidified your leftist bona fides with this comment – congrats. Leftist liberals are the only people who care about this because in order for leftists to win, they need to categorize people by race, gender, age, etc., identify the problems of each sub group whether manufactured or real, and then tell them who is to blame for those problems and promise to bring them “justice”, which of course never happens. Divide and conquer is the timeless strategy of all leftists.

      • tryvasty March 27, 2015 / 1:01 am

        Again, I’m just talking easily quantifiable demographics. Minorities, the young, and women to varying degrees vote Democrat. If describing reality is playing a card, I’m not even sure what the game is. I suspect you don’t, either, but trying to minimize any talk about race as playing a card is a lot easier than discussing the issue in a meaningful way.

    • M. Noonan March 26, 2015 / 11:34 pm

      There are vast injustices being done but they aren’t being done because cops are racist. You can always cook any set of books to find a disparate racial impact – any statistician worth his salt can make the stats say black is white, if he wants to. All you’re doing here, however, is falling for it – what is easier: curbing the bloated pensions of public sector employees, thus removing the necessity for harassing fines, or saying that racism is the problem? If you say racism is the problem, then you don’t have to reform anything…you don’t have to provide justice…all you got to do is hire some diversity consultants (at high salaries, and with great pension benefits!) and call it a day…meanwhile, the problem goes on. Haven’t you noticed that the police forces most often accused of systemic racism are the police forces of large cities largely run by liberals? Run by liberals for decades on end? Run by liberals who have made ethnic diversity into a totem? If the cops in these cities are racist, then who the heck other than liberals are hiring and training them?

      For crying out loud, look at what is happening – not at what the Ruling Class wants to distract you with.

      • tryvasty March 27, 2015 / 12:52 am

        What’s easier, examining evidence and using it to come to conclusions about reality or coming up with a narrative and sticking to it regardless of any proof to the contrary? It certainly seems like you’ve opted for the latter.

      • M. Noonan March 27, 2015 / 1:59 am

        Actually, that is what you’ve done – the evidence is all on my side. Go to the FBI and look up the reports on crime…who does it, what sort, how often. It is a bit tedious, but you’ll find it in there.

        And after you’ve done that – think: why would a bunch of racists be hired by a bunch of liberals? And even if racists were routinely hired by liberals to staff big city police departments, why would these racists risk their careers just to give vent to their racist feelings?

      • tryvasty March 27, 2015 / 12:14 pm

        Right, I directly cite a bunch of sources including the known liberal rag The Wallstreet Journal and your response is to say if I dig around myself for some FBI report that you can’t be bothered to even find, I’ll see that it obviously is all of the evidence.

        That’s all even ignoring the more anecdotal evidence I have. I have relatives that are cops in urban areas that like to tell racist stories at family gathers. I’ve worked jobs that required interacting with people in a professional sense in rural areas of a very red state, and people are shockingly willing to say racist things to someone they have only met a couple of times and is there in a professional capacity. Oh, and just to top that all off, I did contract work over several years inside a police department. I know from first hand experience that the people sending around racist jokes in emails in the Furgeson police department aren’t doing it because they are perfectly confident in their perception as a non-racist, they are doing it because they are so comfortable with their racism that they are willing to been seen as openly racist at their job.

        But no matter, you have a cute narrative about how unelected cops in liberal cities can’t possibly be racist because they are in no way insular from the politics of the city. That’s all the evidence you need.

      • Cluster March 27, 2015 / 2:17 pm

        I can see that your wearing your “racist” avenger cape today riding in like Dudley Do Right to save the day. How noble you must feel. Though you might read the WSJ article you link to – here’s two excerpts:

        “They’ve only got data on this final slice of the process, but they are still missing crucial parts of the criminal-justice process,” said Sonja Starr, a law professor at the University of Michigan, who has analyzed sentencing and arrest data and found no marked increase in racial disparity since 2005.

        The law was meant to alleviate the disparity in federal sentences, but critics say placing restrictions on judges can exacerbate the problem by rendering them powerless to deviate from guidelines and laws that are inherently biased. An often-cited example is a federal law that created steeper penalties for crack-cocaine offenses, which are committed by blacks more frequently than whites, than for powder-cocaine offenses. Congress reduced the disparity in 2010.

        Nevertheless, there is one sure way to avoid sentencing disparity – don’t commit crimes. Just saying. Now it might behoove you to pay attention to issues that actually matter, rather than these shiny little “social justice” distractions the elites like to play you with.

      • M. Noonan March 28, 2015 / 12:26 am

        Sowell has been over this in a shelf of books – the racial disparities are not caused by racism, but by the various choices people make…including the warped choices made in response to the perverse mis-incentives provided by liberal welfare programs. If racism keeps a black man down, then why do black people in the United States who are the children of recent immigrants do well? Black is black, right? But African-Americans make, on average, 38.7k per year – Hatian-Americans 44.5k. List of some of the ethnic groups that make more than the American average:

        Burmese, Jordanian, Jamaican, Cambodian, Ghanian, Kenyan, Thai, Nigerian, Malaysian, Egyptian, Iranian.

        King of them all – Indian-American (as in from India Indians).

        If we’re a bunch of racists and our country is institutionally stacked against non-whites, then we’re about the most incompetent racists the world has ever seen.

        It is all in the choices made, regardless of background. True enough, a child born to extremely poor parents is not likely to do as well as the child of rich parents…but if that very poor child makes some good decisions in life, then his child will start life on a little higher plane, and his child that much higher. On the other hand, if the child of very poor parents refuses to get any education, hands around with criminal elements, begets several children by several different women and refuses to work for a living, then his children will start off on a pretty low plane…but all of them have the choice before them. We, as a people, can help to make a right choice…but if we’re providing welfare and offering racism as an excuse for failure, then we’re helping the poor make bad choices.

      • M. Noonan March 28, 2015 / 12:14 am

        The most racist joke I’ve received in a long while came to me via an ultra-liberal gay man I know. Here’s the thing: only liberals get hung up over things like that. You wring your hands over an ethnic joke – people who are more comfortable in their humanity, don’t.

        But let’s grant your point – the cops are racist to the bone. Ok. Who hired them?

        Liberals.

        Who to the police unions routinely support at election time?

        Liberals.

        If they are racist, then your liberals are responsible for it – not the rest of us. So, go and fix your own problem.

        The additional point I make is that even if the cops are racist to the bone, in the modern world, who would want to risk their career just so they can give vent to their ethnic animosities? For crying out loud, police are under a microscope with everyone second-guessing every move…and the reality is that if they do arrest the drunk who happens to be black they’ll be called racist…and if they don’t they’ll also be called racist. Liberals crying “racist” is a “heads I win/tails you lose” proposition to the rest of us. Heck with it. I’m not buying it. A nation which elects a black man President may have lots of problems, but keeping the black man down ain’t one of them.

      • tryvasty March 28, 2015 / 2:59 am

        You keep asking what reasonable racist would act in a racist way, but racism is inherently unreasonable and irrational. And people are not as introspective as you seem to think. A person whose perception is colored by bigotry likely isn’t thinking “this person’s skin color is dark so I should taze him even though there is no immediate danger to my person” when then they pull a tazer more quickly in on black suspects. They don’t think “I should get more angry at this person not immediately following my instructions because he or she is black and then cite them for something that I wouldn’t cite them for if they were white.”

        And I don’t mean to sound as down on cops as I probably do. Part of the reason you end up with racist cops in urban environments is because the urban poor demographic tends to be largely black. There are probably a not insignificant number of cops out there right now who have only ever had weapons fired at them by black individuals. And once you have racist cops, minorities will react to them more negatively, which in turn makes cops’ experience with minorities more negative. There’s a fairly pathological feedback loop at work there.

        But it’s something we can mitigate, as long as we’re willing to talk about it and not cover our ears and eyes and pretend it doesn’t exist.

        “If racism keeps a black man down, then why do black people in the United States who are the children of recent immigrants do well?”

        Children of immigrants do disproportionately well regardless of race. You’ve successfully demonstrated that there are indeed factors that contribute to a person’s success or lack thereof besides their race. I don’t believe I’ve claimed that race is the only or even the largest factor.

        I am as willing to make offensive jokes including racist ones as anyone in the right context with the right audience. But there’s a pretty big leap between that and doing it professional environment. Or allowing it to occur in a professional environment that you are in charge of. Especially in a professional environment where you are “under a microscope with everyone second-guessing every move”.

      • Cluster March 28, 2015 / 9:09 am

        …but racism is inherently unreasonable and irrational.

        Al Sharpton is a great example.

        But it’s something we can mitigate, as long as we’re willing to talk about it and not cover our ears and eyes and pretend it doesn’t exist.

        I think we have talked about racism ad nauseam. What we don’t talk about is the broken families and out of wedlock births. which in my opinion is the core issue.

      • M. Noonan March 28, 2015 / 10:04 pm

        What you cannot show is where the White Man is keeping the Black Man down. You can’t even show that racism is a problem in the police force – a few ill-mannered jokes don’t amount to actual racism. Let us review a few of the “racist” incidents of late:

        Trayvon Martin –

        Accusation: supposedly gunned down by a racist “white-hispanic” for no reason other than he was a black kid.

        Actuality: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman for no identifiable reason and ended up paying with his life for is misjudgement.

        Michael Brown –

        Accusation: gunned down by racist cop while in the act of surrendering (“hands up, don’t shoot!”).

        Actuality: Michael Brown attacked the police officer and, just as in the Martin case, paid for his life for his misjudgement.

        Eric Garner –

        Accusation: racist cop chokes him to death (“I can’t breath”)

        Actuality: the officer in charge of the Garner arrest was an African-American woman.

        Now, to be sure, Garner still should not have died – but he died because of liberalism. By raising taxes on cigarettes to astronomical levels, mostly-white, upper-class liberals (who mostly don’t smoke) have created a black market where people like Garner make their living…only to be harassed by police officers who have to act like revenue agents rather than public safety officers. Garner died quite unjustly – but not because he was black.

        You do hit close to the reality – but then refuse to follow it. You’ve fallen for the Narrative and won’t stray too far from it. The Narrative is “racist cops”…and you’ll hold to that. But what you won’t see on national TV is the video of the African-American attacking a police officer…you will see the video of the officer hitting that African-American. African-American attacks officer = does not fit the Narrative, and so won’t be shown. Officer hitting African-American = fits the Narrative, and will be shown endlessly accompanied by discussion which assumes cops are racist.

        I can well believe that police officers – black, white, Latino, gay, straight, what have you – are quicker on the draw in some areas of town than others…almost certainly not because of racism, but because of hard experience. The bottom line is that the police will not, say, worry about a gathering of my Knights of Columbus Council – even though it is at least half African-American and resides in a mostly African-American neighborhood – but they will worry about an even much smaller number of African-American youths gathering on a street corner one block away from where the Knights are gathered…and this is not because of racism, but because the officers know that the African-Americans in the Knights are up to good, while all too often, the gathering of young African-American males is a signal that something bad is going to happen.

        You have to live in the real world.

      • tryvasty March 28, 2015 / 2:23 pm

        I’m no fan of Sharpton. To be clear, race-baiters are a real and negative force in the universe. The point I was trying to make at the very beginning of this conversation was just that it is possible to have a discussion about race without having it be in service to a political goal (or Sharpton’s self-importance). And the equally real and negative opposite of Sharpton isn’t a racist, it is somebody who goes into hysterics over the mere suggestion that racism is still a hurdle for minorities in this country.

      • Cluster March 28, 2015 / 2:31 pm

        I think this country has made tremendous advances on racism over the last 40 years, and continues to make positive strides every day. You’ll never fully eradicate racism, it’s just part of the human condition and unfortunately people like Sharpton just keep picking at the wound. I think there are much much bigger issues to concern ourselves with

Comments are closed.