By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Well, much to the chagrin of our Republican brothers and without any obvious help from the train wreckers themselves, their base just shrunk. For the first time in American history, more non-hispanic Caucasians died than were born. This demographic milestone hits the Right at the worst possible time. With the incredible shrinking number of minorities in its ranks (only 13% of Republicans identify themselves as a minority) GOPers could always rest assured of refilling their ranks with scores of Caucasians driven into a frenzy by racial fear mongering or to rage by claims fiscal foolishness or to just about any other emotion … just pick your own right-wing wedge issue. Couple that with the fact that last year over 50% of all babies born were non-Caucasians and that the Republican record with women is well … sad, very sad … and you’ve got a demographic disaster looming for the GOP.
Or do you? Let’s see how are our brothers (and a precious few sisters) across the ideological aisle are dealing with the problem. Why full speed ahead on blocking immigration reform (Sen. Ted Cruz); rushing to impose invasive ultrasounds in heartland places like Wisconsin (Gov. Scott Walker); budget cuts for the poor (Paul Ryan); more votes in the U.S. House on bills to ban all abortion procedures after 20 weeks regardless of rape or incest (Boehner & Cantor). These righties sure know how to woo a woman.
Are there any voices of reason on the deck of this Titanic? Well you’d hope so. The College Republicans, once the recruiting ground of bomb throwers like Newt Gingrich (in 1978 he implored them be “young, nasty people who h[ave] no respect for their elders”), now seems to be the crewman in the crow’s nest transfixed on the looming iceberg even as their older brethren play the same ol’ tune (Nearer My God to Thee was the reputed last song played on the ill-fated luxury liner–strangely appropriate now and then) that got them shut out in the last two presidential battles and lost the youth vote by 5 million votes. According to a new report by the baby Repubs, young people deemed “winnable” for Republicans increasingly are coming to see the GOP a ” closed-minded, racist, rigid, [and]old-fashioned.” (p. 69). Imagine what the “unwinnables” must think! The report also finds the GOP out-of-step with the under 25 crowd in terms of understanding young Americans reliance on social media and non-traditional news sources like Comedy Central’s’ The Daily Show to get news and hence their view of the world. Just as distressing, the Republicans are hopelessly tone-deaf to the attitudes of young voters on issues like abortion, immigration, and negative political advertising. Ignore them at your peril the collegians are screaming, but the Right just keeps chugging father right. Onward Christian soldiers!
You have to wonder how any political party can survive with shrinking numbers, unpopular views, and an institutionalized arrogance (that 47% line still resonates) a Roman emperor would envy. Maybe you don’t have wonder for very long. Ask a Whig. Oops there aren’t any.
And as for the Caucasian race in the U.S., it might be time to take a break from the rat race they so proudly created. “We’re jumping the gun on a long, slow decline of our white population, which is going to characterize this century,” William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, told the paper. “It’s a bookend from the last century, when whites helped us grow. Now it’s minorities who are going to make the contributions to our economic and population growth over the next 50 years.”
Was that a chill I just felt blowing over from the country club?
Source: Washington Post
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
RWL,
Do you always think people who think your arguments are bullshit are upset?
How does that work out for you?
You should know there are people here who deliberately try to piss me off and can’t, so any delusions you have of having angered me are just that: delusional. Now, on to business . . .
As for the sidebar, you addressed me directly so I’m perfectly fit to address whether your argument is a non-starter or not. What it was was a really weak and disengenuous attempt to inject race and gender into an argument that isn’t even remotely about race and gender but about permissible powers of government. There is no reason to bring gender or race to the table at all.
Unless you’re using whistle words to try to draw in the right wing loonies against any form of social net because it pays for them “NEEE-gro welfare mothers”.
Did I mention I’m also an expert on propaganda and its various techniques?
So why don’t you try to address Mark’s argument directly and see how that works out for you, because if you want to discuss the GW Clause, you’re going to have to do far better than you have so far. However, the GW Clause remains a sidebar to Mark’s topic at hand, which is oddly enough, how the political right in this country is losing traction due to demographic changes.
Now who would possibly want to distract from that discussion by bringing up race, gender and social safety nets?
While Gene tries to count to 10, we wait to hear what Mespo has to say………………
RWL,
You mistake dismissal as fighting words.
Or was “[i]f you wish to address Mark’s argument, you might have better success directly, but your ’roundabout’ tactic via the GW Clause is simply a non-starter based on a sidebar” somehow unclear?
Gene,
When you take deep breaths, you are supposed to count to 10 not 5.
And who determines what is a ‘non-starter based upon a sidebar’?
Let Mespo speak for himself; I am sure he is of age to do so.
RWL,
Actually most anyone who has read this blog for more than a month is familiar with the straw man fallacy since it is commonly called out here. See, setting up a false argument to knock down is a favorite tactic of those who really don’t have an argument. None of which changes that your representation of the SSA as an equal protection matter is a mischaracterization. Race had nothing to do with the SSA.
If you wish to address Mark’s argument, you might have better success directly, but your “roundabout” tactic via the GW Clause is simply a non-starter based on a sidebar.
Gene,
Calm down. Take a deep breath. Find your fighting mode switch and turn it off. Turn on your nice, reasoning switch.
I did put question marks at the end of my statement about the General Welfare Clause and the SSA, didn’t I? This means that what I said can be addressed either way: agree or disagree. There is always more than one way to entertain a topic.
Gene:
‘Straw Man.” I haven’t heard that term being used in a long time (Most of the bloggers probably don’t know what the term straw man is defined as….So here is a link for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
However, I was addressing (or window dressing) Mespo’ article in a round about way via your, Mike S., and Bron’ usage of the general welfare clause.
Historically, Did the Dixie Democrats wanted African-Americans back in chains, and the Republicans, led by Abe Lincoln, wanted us free? 100 years later, the parties have switched views or sides: Now its’ the democrats seeking the black vote, and the GOP doesn’t really care? Therefore…….
Mespo,
So, why even vote? What purpose does it serve, since the Elites have been in control, while giving us (we the people) false hope as if we have the power to change something by voting?
Is the GOP in survival mode due to an increase in minority voters voting for the Dixiecrats? Not really. According to this article by Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics:
“But most importantly, the 2012 elections actually weren’t about a demographic explosion with non-white voters. Instead, they were about a large group of white voters not showing up…”
“Put another way: The increased share of the minority vote as a percent of the total vote is not the result of a large increase in minorities in the numerator, it is a function of many fewer whites in the denominator…”
“But in terms of interpreting elections, and analyzing the future, the substantial drop-off in the white vote is a significant data point. Had Latino and African-American voters turned out in massive numbers, we might really be talking about a realignment of sorts, although we would have to see if the Democrats could sustain it with someone other than Obama atop the ticket (they could not do so in 2010). As it stands, the bigger puzzle for figuring out the path of American politics is who these non-voters are, why they stayed home, and whether they might be reactivated in 2016 (by either party).”
In other words,the GOP can win every meaningless election if they get the rural whites to come to the polls.
Here is a copy of Sean Trende’s article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106.html
Perhaps he’s distracted by the dog or the diapers, Mike.
Bron,
RWL’s argument is a straw man because the SSA had no direct casual connection to women or minorities and equal protection. It frames the issue of the SSA in a context in which was never at issue ergo it is a material misrepresentation of the GW Clause as it applies to women and minorities. That the SSA also addresses the burdens of widows does not mean that women were not covered by the GW Clause via the 14th Amendment before it was enacted and race was not a factor at all in the enactment of the SSA – age and poverty were the primary problems being addressed regardless of race.
And I also understand you inherently don’t trust any form of government, Bron, but the abuses listed are all very real matters of recorded history, your apologetics notwithstanding.
Bron,
And who gets to decide what is or isn’t fundamental? Are you psychic? Your distrust of an individual is immaterial to their arguments with one narrow exception: when the testator is offering his testimony as the sole evidence of truth of a matter asserted absent any substantive supporting evidence. Then and only then is a speaker’s character at issue in evaluating an argument because you are in effect relying solely upon their personal veracity.
All you are doing is making a stronger case for evaluating arguments independent of the speaker and on their own merit.
And you should really leave nick out of this. His ongoing violation of the rules, regardless of his motivation or character, has nothing to do with this issue. You yourself once got banned for breaking the rules here. You should know that. No one here gives a damn about his motivation or his character. It’s immaterial to his persistent ad hominem attacks just as your motivation and character was immaterial to your rule violation.
Just so, Gen. Alexander should face the consequences of his breaking the rules found in the 4th Amendment regardless of his motive or his character. His arguments in his defense are prime facie contrary to the rule of law. He is a rule breaker. And in his specific case, the rules he broke makes him a criminal.
Gene H:
why is RWL’s comment a straw man? All he is saying is that blacks and women were represented unfairly in the original wording of the Constitution. He is right. We had to fight a civil war and pass a couple of amendments to rectify the outrageous abomination of slavery.
Then we had to pass another amendment for women.
Gene H:
I am reading Howard Zinn right now. You might want to think about the fact that there werent that many factories and that they could pick and choose and pretty much set wage rates and working conditions.
I understand that you get your stereotype of a capitalist from 19th century America but please. We have gone beyond that and not really from government intervention but from societal changes and disgust. Government only passes laws when it is politically expediant to do so and they are usually behind the times. Or they screw something up and then they need to try and fix it.
“I understand that you get your stereotype of a capitalist from 19th century America but please. We have gone beyond that and not really from government intervention but from societal changes and disgust.”
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, the Koch Brothers, and the Walton Family are fundamentally no different, nor less greedy than John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and the Mellon family. Monopolists, egotists and then philanthropists all.
RWL,
Straw man. Including women and minorities under the protection and guarantees of the Constitution (including the GW Clause) is an ongoing battle in many respects but the first and most important salvo of that battle was the enactment of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The creation of the Social Security Act was challenged primarily on the issue of appropriate and permissible taxation, not Equal Protection.
the thing is Gene H, is that a speakers argument about fundamentals is what motivates/animates his underlying philosophy.
Take nick for example, he is a live and let live guy. You do your thing, I’ll do mine. I’ll respect your rights, if you respect mine.
Some people on the other hand, like this Gen. Alexander feloow or the head of the IRS, want to control people for the good of society. They are willing to use force for the good of society. I am afraid of those people. They are the type who lie to congress about wiretaps or give money to Wall St. in the name of Main St. and do many other things in the name of the common good which arent for the common good.
I know they dont care for the individual and would use individuals as tools to their personal ends which is power over others.
Bron, Mike S, Gene
Did the General Welfare Clause include women and minorities? Or maybe it wasnt until the 1930s with the Social Security Act? See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act
“maybe so but the US did pretty well in the first 125 years. Real wages doubled, we put trains all over the US, manufactured steel, put electricity in many homes, saw the rise of mass production, etc.”
And banks were allowed to under capitalize, unions and organizers were literally attacked, there was no minimum wage and no child labor laws, unsafe working conditions were far too common as were unsafe products.
“Germany’s welfare state led to almost endless war for them and eventually gave rise to the Nazis. Oh sh1t, endless war, totalitarian state? Arent we almost there now? Who would have thought? I know a few who did.”
And those “few who did” are making the same logical error you are. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation is not causation. The primary cause for the rise of the Nazis was the economic and social strife created by the draconian terms of settlement ending WWI at the Treaty of Versailles as any competent historian will tell you.
Mike S:
maybe so but the US did pretty well in the first 125 years. Real wages doubled, we put trains all over the US, manufactured steel, put electricity in many homes, saw the rise of mass production, etc.
Germany’s welfare state led to almost endless war for them and eventually gave rise to the Nazis. Oh sh1t, endless war, totalitarian state? Arent we almost there now? Who would have thought? I know a few who did.
“Germany’s welfare state led to almost endless war for them and eventually gave rise to the Nazis”
Bron,
You need to really not read history in terms of setting up false causes. The fact that Germany had social welfare programs had nothing to do with their getting involved in wars. Stop pulling my chain you are smart enough to know that. 🙂
Or perhaps buy a lot of Depends, depending on your choice in your presented actions.
“How do you manage?”
I judge arguments individually, Bron, regardless of who is making them. In the case of the central bank argument, as enacted, I agree with Jefferson. A true national central bank should not be a private bank but a pubic institution. I’ve said so on numerous occasions.
So since you cannot divorce argument from speaker, I guess you should plan on getting a guide dog.
gENE h:
“Hamilton’s final proposal was to create a Bank of the United States, modeled on the Bank of England, to act as the government’s fiscal agent, provide a sound paper money supply, and be a source of loans for the government. Thomas Jefferson and his political allies thought it nothing but a scheme to enrich the rich. They also thought it patently unconstitutional, as the Constitution does not explicitly give the federal government the power to create corporations.”
So you are a Hamiltonian? Now are you a Hamiltonian in toto or do you just pick and choose? A little Jefferson, a little Hamilton, a little pinch of this and a little pinch of that, all pinches at philosophical odds with each other.
How do you manage?
If I was at odds with myself on such a fundamental level, I wouldnt know wether to sh$t or go blind.
I guess really smart people are able to handle contradictions.
oops! Should have been a period before once. You make some good points about young people. I am over 60 with two children under thirty. They “curmudgeon proof” me.
He is certainly more Reagan than Roosevelt, that’s for sure, Mike.
Then you simply aren’t aware of the history behind the GW Clause, Bron.