The Republican Party Denounced As Hate Group By Pultizer Prize Winning Columnist

Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts this weekend penned a column identifying a new hate group: the Republican Party. Pitts accused the party of being race baiting for years and now believes that they meet the definition of a hate group with the KKK and neo-Nazis. The column is the latest example of how we no longer recognize good-faith differences in opposing views in our age of rage. It also reflects how hate speech often is defined in highly generalized terms that allow for arbitrary designations, particularly for those who espouse different views than your own.

Pitts used the definition of The Southern Poverty Law Center which has been sued for labeling conservative groups as hate groups. The group has reversed some of its prior declarations of hate groups, but has not changed the loose definition that allowed it to capriciously select such groups or individuals as “extremists”. The Center defines the hate groups as denoting “an organization that — based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities — has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

So any group can be declared a hate group if either its beliefs or practices “malign” any group? Yes, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

That made it easy for Pitts who concluded that “For half a century, then, the GOP has taught white voters racial resentment, taught them to prioritize concerns about white prerogative over concerns about shuttered factories, dirty water, lack of health care, foreclosed futures. It did this in code — “Willie Horton,” “tax cuts,” “welfare queen” — which, while obvious to all but the most gullible, still allowed respectable white men and women to maintain fig leaves of deniability.”

With Trump, Pitts asserts that the GOP “fits [the definition] with room to spare.”

Under the SPLC definition, doesn’t Pitts’ column constitute maligning Republicans as a group? It is not an immutable characteristic (though I wonder with a few Republican friends), but such immutability is noted by the DPLC was merely “typical” and not essential.

The column could well have been tongue in cheek but suggesting that an entire political group qualifies as a hate group is hardly a light satire and Pitts seems entirely serious.

Pitts simply declared that “they are now is the party of “Send her back!” — of outrage over Colin Kaepernick kneeling and April Ryan asking questions.” Well, they do have a few other issues that define them. One can disagree with the party’s stance on global warming, immigration, military budgets, or other issues but those issues exist as core differences with the Democratic party. Moreover, the opposition to Kaepernick is shared by a majority of Americans in many polls. I am one of those who disagree with the protest during the anthem. Are we all a hate group because our opposition could be viewed as maligning those NFL players?

I have joined in the criticism of Trump for his tweets (like the highly offensive call for members of Congress to “go back” to where they came from). I have also criticized the GOP for not denouncing Trump on that and many other occasions. However, I do not view the GOP as a hate group or think that it is appropriate to do so. It is an example of how we no longer debate issues but label those with whom we disagree. It is not enough to disagree with the Republican Party. You must declare the entire party to be a hate group. Such arguments only highlight the subjectivity in such definitions — and the danger that such ambiguity holds for free speech.

179 thoughts on “The Republican Party Denounced As Hate Group By Pultizer Prize Winning Columnist”

  1. I’d like to know what the h*ll are Pelosi, Cummings, Jackson Lee, ETC doing touring around Italy, staying in 5 star hotels and dining in fancy famous restaurants in Venice Italy??? What “business” is in Venice Italy for our Congressional so-called legistlators???

    And what is Ilham Omar doing over there with them?? Shouldn’t the law breaking tax fraud “legistlator” be under an ethics investigation in addition to legal probes?? What the hell is going on?

    Congress would be a joke if they weren’t all so corrupt and disgusting. DO something FOR the American people besides attack Trump and go on all your fancy “junkets” paid for by tax payers!!! I am outraged by Pelosi and her Democrat hypocrite frauds!! This is why they all want to keep “working for the American people” well into their 80s and beyond! Vote them all out!!

  2. Context is everything.

    I am really confused by Prof. Turley being so upset by this tweet!

    This is Pres.Trump’s tweet to the Congresswomen:

    “So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done”

    (The only part that should be changed is that he should have said “whose families originally came from countries whose governments,…etc”)

  3. like the highly offensive call for members of Congress to “go back” to where they came from)
    except that is not what he said. dont be like Democrats and twist around what he said and take it out of context. you’re better than that

    1. No, it’s highly offensive to complain about it. What he said was reasonable and his detractors are poseurs.

  4. The entire concept of hate speech (as defined by the left) rests on the subjective interpretation of the listener. There is no conversation with the speaker to clarify intent, meaning or desired impact. The reason there is no requirement for dialog is that it strips away from the offended listener the power to control the story narrative. In other words, hate speech is important to the left as an oppo-branding technique. There is little interest in reaching a more nuanced understanding of the utterance that caused offense.

  5. Mrs. Obama, Here’s a Chance to Go High. She says she sees beauty in diversity. Does that include Melania Trump?

    By Douglas MacKinnon

    Former First Lady Michelle Obama hosts a book signing In New York, Nov. 30, 2018. Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
    Last week, in apparent response to President Trump’s “go back” controversy involving Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, IIhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, Mrs. Obama tweeted: “What truly makes our country great is its diversity. I’ve seen that beauty in so many ways over the years. Whether we are born here or seek refuge here, there’s a place for us all. We must remember it’s not my America or your America. It’s our America.” She’s right. So why doesn’t Mrs. Obama say a word in defense of First Lady Melania Trump?

    In a podcast last week with Vogue editor Anna Wintour, Anne McElvoy of the Economist observed that Mrs. Trump had used “British fashion” to be a “trans-Atlantic ambassador.” Ms. McElvoy asked Ms. Wintour: “Do you value that, or would you just rather stay away from the Trumps?”

    Ms. Wintour pretended Mrs. Trump did not exist: “Well, I think First Lady Michelle Obama really was so incredible in every decision she made about fashion,” she said. “She was the best ambassador that this country could possibly have in many ways, obviously, way beyond fashion.”

    Ms. McElvoy tried to return to Mrs. Trump: “But she’s not the First Lady now. So what about the one you’ve got now?”

    Ms. Wintour replied that Mrs. Obama “is the example that I admire.”

    What an opportunity for Mrs. Obama to show that she meant what she tweeted about diversity. Does she see its beauty in Mrs. Trump? Can the former first lady overlook her feelings toward President Trump to give much-deserved credit to the current first lady—a woman who came from a tough background, carved out a place for herself in a highly competitive and unforgiving industry and learned to speak six languages along the way?

    Like Mrs. Obama, Mrs. Trump has added to the greatness of our country and there is beauty in that truth—a truth that speaks to “our America.”

    Mr. MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and \author of “The Forty Days: A Vision of Christ’s Lost Weeks.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/mrs-obama-heres-a-chance-to-go-high-11564337402

    1. Estovir, according to your article, Michelle Obama had nothing to with this podcast. Why would she be obliged to comment on a program she may not have known anything about???

      1. When a person preaches x, y and z, the burden is on them to walk x, y and z. Surely you of all people bathe and feed illegal immigrants in Hollywood, care for the sick, and build homes for the homeless, given you fill these forums with your sermons therein, amiright?

  6. And the content of their character hypocrisy award goes to…

    Politico highlighted a longstanding rift within the DCCC last week, publishing a report that quoted staffers and lawmakers complaining about a lack of racial diversity within the group’s leadership, and among the vendors hired by the group.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/director-of-house-dems-campaign-arm-resigns-amid-backlash-over-lack-of-diversity/

    Because it is in no way racist to believe effective leadership begins with racial diversity.

  7. THE FORGOTTEN GOP POSTMORTEM..

    IN AFTERMATH OF 2012 DEFEAT

    After Mitt Romney’s 2012 defeat, the Republican National Committee commissioned a report to determine where the party needed to go in the 21st Century.

    Said report, released in March of 2013, recommended that the party embark upon a national outreach effort geared towards minorities, youths and LGBT voters.

    These advisories were hailed as perfectly sensible by most pundits at the time. It was well-known that Republicans were overly dependent on older White voters in a period when Whites were becoming an increasingly smaller percentage of the overall population.

    But when Donald Trump hijacked the Republican Party in 2016, he shredded the 2012 Postmortem and a totally reversed the party’s intended course.

    Trump has decided to gamble big on the past. Older White voters are the backbone of Trump’s base. Voters like Allan, our most active commentator, embody the ‘new’ but very old GOP.

    Never mind that elderly voters won’t be around much longer. Trump himself is elderly. Trump scarcely cares about the party’s fortunes once he has left the stage.

    By 2043 Whites are projected to comprise less than 50% of the country. By then Trump and most of his base will be dead. They are quite literally ‘deadenders’.

  8. So now an entire political party is racist because… they oppose the Democrat party. Brilliant! There’s no sense arguing this point further. People stupid enough to believe it in the first place are not going be persuaded by facts, logic and reason. That’s roughly 25% of the population that wouldn’t vote for a Republican if it was the only option on the ballot. On the other end are 25% of the population that are apparently racists because they would never vote for a Democrat if it was the only option available. The middle 50% will not be so predictable. So the Republicans should get out in front of this BS and take ownership of this new definition. From now on, racism to them is opposing Democrats on: and then list all the ways they oppose them.

    1. Reading Turley’s article and Pitts rationale for declaring the Republican Party a “hate group,” there’s a lot there that if the Republican Party doesn’t want to be associated with, they should stop associating with. What wasn’t in the article, was declaring Republican’s racist because they oppose Democrats. That’s you changing the definition to keep from addressing the points made.
      To be clear, I don’t consider Republicans a hate group, although some hate groups associate with Trump which isn’t quite the same thing as associating with Republicans but not much different. If Republicans fail to denounce racism or can no longer acknowledge its existence. That’s pretty much the same as supporting it (but not the same as being a hate group).

  9. SPLC Discriminates against its Black Employees.
    Leonard Pitts approves of SPLC Racism against his own, just like Elijah Cummings hates his own in rat infested Baltimore District

    🤡

    Southern Poverty Law Center in upheaval

    The president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Richard Cohen, announced his resignation Friday, the latest in a series of high-profile departures at the anti-hate organization that have come amid allegations of misconduct and workplace discrimination.

    The departure, just one week after he fired his longtime partner Morris Dees, will mark the end of an era at the Montgomery, Ala., nonprofit, whose staff had recently raised questions about whether the organization’s long-standing mission of justice and anti-discrimination — which had yielded hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from the public — had matched its internal treatment of some black and female employees.

    https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/03/morris-dees-fired-president-richard-cohen-out-southern-poverty-law-center-in-upheaval.html

    1. Actually, it’s a long con. It was exposed as a direct mail mill by Alabama newspapers in 1995, an expose given extralocal distribution by Harper’s in 2000. That any commercial company would make use of the $PLC is an indicator of an absence of due diligence or frank malice. The marks who contribute to $PLC are financing the expansion of Mrs. Morris Dees collection of odd and expensive knick-knacks, and nothing else.

      1. ”Hate,” Immigration, and the Southern Poverty Law Center
        Harper, 2010
        by Ken Silverstein

        Here’s an excerpt from a story I wrote about the SPLC for Harper’s back in 2000:

        Today, the SPLC spends most of its time–and money–on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate. “He’s the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement,” renowned anti- death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer says of Dees, his former associate, “though I don!t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye.” The Center earned $44 million last year alone–$27 million from fund-raising and $17 million from stocks and other investments–but spent only $13 million on civil rights programs, making it one of the most profitable charities in the country.

        In 1987, Dees won a $7 million judgment against the United Klans of America on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, whose son was lynched by two Klansmen. The UKA’s total assets amounted to a warehouse whose sale netted Mrs. Donald $51,875. According to a groundbreaking series of newspaper stories in the Montgomery Advertiser, the SPLC, meanwhile, made $9 million from fund-raising solicitations featuring the case, including one containing a photo of Michael Donald’s corpse.

        The SPLC is already the wealthiest civil rights group in America, though this letter quite naturally omits that fact. Other solicitations have been more flagrantly misleading. One pitch, sent out in 1995-when the Center had more than $60 million in reserves-informed would-be donors that the “strain on our current operating budget is the greatest in our 25-year history.” Back in 1978, when the Center had less than $10 million, Dees promised that his organization would quit fund-raising and live off interest as soon as its endowment hit $55 million. But as it approached that figure, the SPLC upped the bar to $100 million, a sum that, one 1989 newsletter promised, would allow the Center “to cease the costly and often unreliable task of fund raising. ” Today, the SPLC’s treasury bulges with $120 million, and it spends twice as much on fund-raising-$5.76 million last year-as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses.

        The SPLC operates on the same basis today. Oh, except its treasury is now up to $175 million or so, bigger than the GNP of some of the world’s smaller nations.

        https://harpers.org/blog/2010/03/hate-immigration-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center/

      2. They’re past the 500 Million mark in their endowment now per the 990s. To dismiss them as solely fleecing marks is to miss the extent to which they have become relied upon as a sort of branding authority for what is and is not “hate”

        they have at times engaged in training law enforcement and have targeted their dishrag to police departments. they have also been terminated from training gigs at times

        Ms Dees is not he first Ms Dees. To read her divorce complaint is a shocker. Of course I am sure Morris had his side of the story too.

        They’re corrupt and the outfits further extending their reach are too.

        They are used as profilers for amazon smile donation program. which is a travesty

        one could go on and on with the damage they have done

  10. The issue with Republicans is that they do not denounce Trump when he attacks the Squad and other black members of Congress, calls them racist, when he establishes concentration camps where brown-skinned migrants are held under dehumanizing conditions and where children are separated from their parents to serve as a deterrent to others wishing to migrate. SPLCs’ definition of a hate group only includes attacks against an entire class of people based on their “immutable characteristics”. “Immutable characteristics” include such things as race, gender, national origin, etc. but does NOT include political beliefs, which are subject to change.

    By failing to condemn Trump, Republicans stand with him and tacitly endorse his attacks on people due to their race. That makes them a hate group.

    1. He is not racist. Opposition to illegal immigration is not racist, regardless of the color of the skin of the illegal immigrants.

    2. @natacha

      Is the antifa a hate group or righteous fighters against “hate”

      antonio

  11. highlight the subjectivity in such definitions — and the danger that such ambiguity holds for free speech.”

    and are easily shot down by any objectivist analysis which seems to incite the subjectivist flip pop not thought out carefully version but still

    Objectivism wins over Subjectivism every time including when the need is for creativity.

  12. Easier way to write the attack is

    RINOs identified as the same as Socialist Regressives ) That way you get all of the former Slave Party turned anti civil rights part/Progressive Socialists in one neat little package over on the far left from the center of political discourse in the USA and in doing so do not make the mistake of using their center which is the hyphen between Marx and Engels with a touch o Adolfism.

    As for me having what’s left as a Constitutional Centrist the true center of the USA is very comforting.

    But remember all those names and a bunch more do not mean more votes … just more names.

  13. Leonard Pitts singles out the Republican Party as a hate group despite the Democratic Party ticking more boxes for extremism and hate rhetoric. There is abundant record in social media and the popular press for condemnation of white Americans by prominent Democrat members of Congress which was not only not repudiated by the Democratic National Committee, but seems to have been quietly encouraged.

    Meanwhile, African-Americans who support the GOP and the elected President of the United States of America are subjected to personal attacks by Democrats which themselves are hate rhetoric.

    The mainstream media (in this I include people active in the entertainment media as as well as the press) have indulged freely in demonization of white politicians maliciously and hatefully (portraying severed heads of not just Trump during a CNN live program, but George W. Bush during an episode of Game of Thrones is about as violently hateful as hate rhetoric gets). And since Democrats gleefully point out that whites are becoming a minority in the United States, they cannot pretend their invective directed at white Americans is not hate rhetoric.

    So Leonard Pitts doth protest too much. Historically, the Democratic Party cut its teeth on hate rhetoric. The 1863 New York Draft Riots were a Democrat affair, as was slavery itself, and Jim Crow afterward. The preponderance of Ku Klux Klan activity throughout history occurred under the aegis of the Democratic party. And lately, you don’t have to look very far in Twitter to find hateful rhetoric which is tolerated and not removed, directed at anyone who disagrees with the Democrats and people speakng for them, so that when Pitts speaks out about hateful rhetoric by members of the GOP, his outrage is cynically and myopically selective.

    1. You got that right. I could care less if somebody calls it a hate group. If the SPLC calls the Republican party a hate group, it will just be summarizing its own fake yellow journalism from the past 15 years anyway.

      There’s a lot of people who wear a denunciation from the SPLC like a badge of courage. IT’s a well known boon for fundraising. to be written up by the SPLC.

  14. Democrats lust for slavery caused the Civil War. Here we go again. Democrats traded their 19th C plantation slaves for their all new, modern, more “acceptable” version of slavery: inner city blacks locked into government hand outs, coerced abortion (white Democratic Party medical pros getting wealthy for committing genocide of unborn black babies…Kaiser Health reports blacks commit 40% of all US abortions), blaming all social ills and personal failure on “whitey,” and an alleged, fuzzy, ill-defined “environment” or “atmosphere” of white oppression. Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton welcomed and encouraged this slavery by imprisoning black males in record numbers, leaving black families without a father, forcing blacks to rely on Democrat hand outs, EXACTLY AS PLANNED.

    Remember LBJ Re. his Great Society welfare bill: “We’ll have these n______s voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”

    Finally, a GOP member calls out the Dems for their modern version of slavery, and the DEMS label him a “RAYcis.”

    1. While it takes either money for prosecution or attorneys willing to work pro bono or on a contingency fee basis, being the subject of one of SPLC unfounded accusations of racism, extremism or hate-mongering can result in large court awards.

      A Muslim gentleman who specialized in exposing hateful Islamist rhetoric last year was awarded $4.5 million because a court found SPLC had defamed him by callng him an extremist, when he was prima facie a political and religious moderate.

      While SPLC, like Oberlin College, is scandalously well-funded, multi-million dollar damage awards might in both cases accomplish two things – make liberal behemoths which defame “those who don’s share our views” carelessly and recklessly a little poorer, and cause their benefactors to reconsider funding them.

      Of course, careless, reckless and malicious defamation is just another tool for SPLC’s core benefactors, who view injustices and malice toward those who disagree with them as necessary to effect the social change they seek.

      There’s another avenue of redress – many US states have criminal libel and slander statutes. If writing big damage checks doesn’t dissuade those who deal mainly in lies, then perhaps jail time will.

  15. “The Republican Party Denounced As Hate Group By Pultizer Prize Winning Columnist”

    That is how some people define groups and people they don’t like. It is a good reason the Pulitzer Prize should be abandoned because it has a tendency to highlight underserving writers that then use their Pulitzer designation in a way to spread their particular type of hate. What Pitts is doing is expressing his anger of the past that he cannot rid himself of and blaming the wrong political party. Blame the Democrats for racism that is being promoted by people like Pitts.

    1. Democrats is a false name they became Socialist (Liberal Pro-gressives under Woodrow Wilson and went from being the parties of Slavery to the party of anti civil rights and regressive socialism.

      They are by no means democratic even if we were a Democracy which is also not true. It was soundly rejected nine times in the writing of The Constitution and that status has never changed.

      Representative Constitutional Republic of, by, and for the citizens to be exact.

      There were at one time two Democratic Partys. Northern version bought and sold slaves, the Southern version owned slaves.

  16. I guess I would say, “So what?” Label the Republican party as a hate group. What does that mean? What are they going to do about it? Since there is no such thing as hate speech, I imagine very little could be done about any stupid label such as this.

Comments are closed.