AH challenge:more liberal america [Archive] - Alternate History Discussion Board

View Full Version : AH challenge:more liberal america

Straha

January 2nd, 2004, 06:48 PM

The United States of America in OTL is unique amoung the democratic
republics of the Earth in that the political center of gravity is
further to the right than other democracies and the average person
more conservative.

What PODs are necessary for the political center of gravity to move
to the left in America with a more liberal population. The POD does
not to make the United States as liberal as the Netherlands but it
must make the United States as liberal as the UK or Canada.

Ian the Admin

January 2nd, 2004, 11:44 PM

I think the US being more conservative is really fairly recent (post WW2) on most issues. Except for anything having to do with that 800 pound gorilla of the US social landscape, racism.

I actually read a really interesting book about this that I grabbed in Canada over the holidays (currently not available in the US). It's called "Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada, and the Myth of Converging Values". Basically it's written by a Canadian market research/polling guy. In the process of doing his job, he noticed that the politics and values of Canadians and Americans have actually gotten more different over the past couple of decades, not more similar. Which is really surprising considering that Canadians watch more and more American movies/TV shows, we're sharing the same internet, free trade is increasing commerce between the two countries, etc. Basically you have a trend where the US is going one way and much of the rest of the western world is going another way - even Canada which is right next to it and shares much of the same mass media.

As for what the changes are, there's really two aspects to it. One is that the US has completely swapped places on the political/social map with some other countries, especially Canada. "Fire and Ice" points out that half a century ago, the suggestion that Canada was more liberal than the US would have been ludicrous. Canada had a more rural population, probably less ethnic diversity/immigration, people went to church more, and in general Canadians would tell you their politics were more "peace, order, and good government" compared to the freedom-loving/libertine US. It's only recently that Canada and the US have completely swapped places. Now Canada is highly urban, has a much higher immigration rate than the US, religion is way less of a big deal than the US, and public attitudes have totally liberalized. In the US in the 60s and early 70s there was a shift toward more liberal opinions to the point people were confidently predicting legalized pot, an equal rights amendment for women, etc. Then abruptly that all stopped and there was a swing back to the right - whereas in Canada, no such thing.

But the REALLY surprising thing about the US swing towards conservatism - surprised me and I know a lot about opinion research - is how much of it happened during the 1990s. The point where Canada and the US "crossed over" and Canadian attitudes finally became identifiably more liberal than US attitudes was in the 80s, not surprising as this was the Reagan era, the "me" decade in the US. But during the 1990s - when Clinton was president, everybody was prosperous, and things were pretty peaceful - the US continued to make a big beeline away from liberal opinions, whereas Canada continued to become more liberal. So you can't really blame this on who is president or on international conflicts. US society was moving away from liberal opinions even after the Cold War was over and before September 11.

As for the specifics of this "move away from liberalism" that's interesting too. Because really there are two trends in the US. One trend is that the religious right has gotten a lot more influence over the past couple of decades - more political power, its own media, and so on. But this growing political power of "traditional conservatism" doesn't mean growing numbers of people believing in it. No matter how much louder and more unified the fundamentalists and hard right types get, they're not really getting more numerous. Also, the progressive/liberal "wouldn't vote for a Republican with a gun to my head" crowd isn't really getting much smaller. The big change is happening in the center - the approximately half of the population that isn't committed to the hardcore right or left.

And what's happening to the center is something that shouldn't bring any comfort to either the right or the left. "Fire and Ice" uses statistical techniques to measure the most important trends of change in US social/cultural attitudes. Their technique produces a two-dimensional political map.

One dimension is authority vs. individuality. People high on authority place emphasis on duty, behaving according to social norms, obedience to authority, traditional religion/families, and so on. People high on individuality place emphasis on questioning authority, non-hierarchal organization, sexual permissiveness, equal/flexible relationships between people of different ages and genders, and so on.

The other dimension is survival vs. fulfillment. People high on survival see the world as a sort of Darwinian struggle - survival of the fittest, you've got to look out for your own first, other people are ready to take advantage of you, you need to look out for your security and wealth, etc. People high on fulfillment emphasize cooperation and social connection with others. Be a contributor to the community, money doesn't mean everything, and so on.

The traditional left in the US is high on individuality and fulfillment. The traditional right is high on authority and survival. But these guys aren't where the change is taking place. The center is shifting from high authority, high fulfillment people (generally conventional but believing in community and harmony), to high individuality, high survival people (reject traditional authority, but also reject community and believe it's a dog eat dog world).

This is actually a really troubling trend. It's not a shift towards liberalism or conservatism as we conventionally recognize them. It's people rejecting both the conservative solution to social problems (obey the rules of authority and convention) and the liberal solution (cooperate with others, tolerate differences, and form communities). They are out for themselves, they measure success by material gain, and their position on social problems is that shit happens. This is radically different from the rest of the western world, where populations have been predominantly shifting toward liberalism, rather than towards nihilism (for lack of a better word).

Specifically, some the attitudes that have shown the most dramatic increase in the US in the 90s are:

Sexism
- 49% of Americans believe that men should be heads of their household in 2000, up from 42% in 1992. Canadian number is 18%.
- 38% of Americans believe that men are naturally superior to women in 2000, up from 30% in 1992. Canadian number is 24%.

Xenophobia/Nationalism
- 25% of Americans in 2000 believed that non-whites should not be allowed to immigrate, up from 16% in 1992. Canadian number is 13%.
- 49% of Americans believe immigrants have a good influence on the country, compared to 77% of Canadians. (43% of Americans believe immigrants have a bad influence, the other 8% would be neutral/undecided).
- In 2000 31% of Americans said they enjoyed showing foreigners that they're smarter and stronger, up from 27% in 1992. Canadian number is 14%, down from 17% in 1992.

Acceptance of violence
- 24% of Americans think violence is a normal part of everyday life in 2000, up from 10% in 1992. Canadian number is 12%.
- 31% of Americans in 2000 believe that when you're frustrated, a little violence is no big deal and can offer relief, up from 14% in 1992. Canadian number is 14%.
- 23% of Americans believe violence is an acceptable way to reach one's goals in 2000, up from 9% in 1992. Canadian number is 13%.

Acceptance of advertisement
- 44% of Americans in 2000 believe that a widely advertised product is probably good, up from 34% in 1992. Canadian number is 17%.
- Increasing portion of Americans report getting great pleasure from advertising (decreasing portion in Canada)

Materialism
- Increasing portion of the US population believes it's important that others admire the things you own, decreasing portion feel a personal responsibility to those worse off than themselves, increasing portion say they have trouble accomplishing things due to a hectic life, increasing portion say they need to get away from the burdens of their lives. All trends in Canada are the opposite.

Decreasing civic engagement ("Bowling Alone" effect)
- In 2000, 34% of Americans discuss local problems with other people, down from 66% in 1992. Canadian number is 47% (down slightly from 52%).
- Average American spends 40% of their leisure time watching TV, up from 30% in the 1960s. Canadian number was 30% then and now.
- 31% of Americans are obese compared to 15% of Canadians
- SUVs outsell minivans 2:1 in the US, minivans outsell SUVs 2:1 in Canada. (Market research shows that people view the minivan as a symbol of family commitment, whereas SUV owners don't want to be "tied down" and don't want other people to see them as having lost the adventure in their lives).

Those are some of the most noteworthy changes. There are other changes. Some are negative (such as a noticable 1990s increase in "ecological fatalism", the belief that environmental problems cannot be fixed). A few are positive (people feel more comfortable with adapting to a complex society, have more support for flexible family structures, and have more support for the ideal of multiculturalism even while they are in fact becoming more hostile to immigrants).

David Howery

January 3rd, 2004, 12:37 AM

RMG

January 3rd, 2004, 12:48 AM

Wow, moving to Canada seems like a pretty good idea.

Straha

January 3rd, 2004, 01:49 AM

yes it is a good idea

PM Nixon

January 3rd, 2004, 02:32 AM

Interesting stuff there, Ian. I read an article online a few weeks ago pointing out these same diverging facts. Maybe, just maybe, it's a cycle. It could possibly be that America could become more liberal in a few years, and Canada could become slightly more conservative. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

As for the actual question, my guess is a POD in the 1950s. America at that time was a very conservative place. Maybe if the nation sees a greater commitment to Civil Rights by President Eisenhower(or possibly Stevenson, that could be the POD), then the nation could become more liberal. This will come right before the hippies and the radicals of the 1960s....that may change the way the Civil Rights movement is seen in its later stages, and lead to an America more liberal than OTL.

Another POD is the 1960s, of course. If Hubert Humphrey wins in 1968, he could set the country up to be more liberal. If he succeeds in getting the nation out of Vietnam and making the country prosperous, liberalism may be seen in a more positive light than it is right now.

POD #3: 1976. Maybe if Ford is re-elected, or if Reagan gets a shot and wins the Presidency, it may weaken the Republicans by 1980, quite possibly to the point where the conservatives in the Republican Party, thanks to a Reagan defeat in 1980, cannot fully take control of the party. A person like Edward Kennedy wins in '80 and makes the country strong...while still being a liberal.

Straha

January 3rd, 2004, 02:35 AM

or od this... Take the CSA out of the picture

RMG

January 3rd, 2004, 06:47 AM

or od this... Take the CSA out of the picture

It's a common (though by no means unanimous) sentiment up here that if we let the South just go and let their stagnant economy self-destruct as the North enjoys wonderful Egyptian cotton, we'd be better off. My history teacher said that if the South had been allowed to secede, it would've set the precedent that any state could leave on a whim, which would have pretty much been the end of the United States. Would that happen? Who knows?

Anyway, even with the CSA gone, would America as a whole be more liberal? The North bit of America might be, but then there'd be a deepy conservative, slave-based country of Americans sitting right below it.

Xen

January 3rd, 2004, 07:21 AM

The 1970s were hard on the liberals, it of course started in the 1960's particularly 1968 when Dr King and Robert F Kennedy was murdered. Ted Kennedy left behind too many soggy women to be of much use and the Liberals answered Watergate with Jimmy Carter. The unfortunate events of 1979 set the liberal movement back even further, and the Reagan years were of no help. The 1988 elections is what hurt the liberals the most, Dukakis let George HW Bush bash liberalism, something it hasnt quite recovered from. The Democrats put up the moderate Clinton in 1992, but Congress was controlled by the Republicans. It should also be mentioned Clinton was seen as a liberal and his life style didnt really help the liberals image. Now we have Dubya, and the events surrounding 9-11 which havent really put the US in a very liberal mood.

If RFK survives in 1968, and declines nomination in '72, but makes a run in '76 things could go radically different. He could abandon the Shah in '79 and support the Islamic regime, or he could support the Shah and keep the Islamic regime from coming to power and probably would beat Reagan in 1980. By 1984 Reagan is going to start looking old and the Republicans will go with someone else (perhaps Bush), but if the economy is doing pretty good that year, Kennedy's VP would likely win. After 12 years in power, the democrats are swept out of office in favor of the Republicans (led by Dole?) in 1988, after the Gulf War in 1991, Dole looks sure to be reelected, but the economy gets sluggish and he is put out of office in 1992 in favor of a Democrat (Dukakis?) the Democrats win again in 1996. In 2000 the Republicans put up John McCain who goes on to win the election in a landslide, the joke of the election is the son of former Presidential candidate and owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, George W. Bush attempting to make a run at the office.

The US sees liberalism continue into the late 70s and into the 1980's with a break in the late 80s early 90s, but a return in the 90's. The US is much more liberal, and the world looks very different.

Paul Spring

January 3rd, 2004, 01:49 PM

Ian's statistics do seem to reflect a trend in the US among many people - a lack of concern or interest regarding social issues, and often politics in general, and a focus of all effort on taking care of oneself and sometimes the people closest to you. I definitely see a lot of people in the US as having an attitude that each individual should take care of his or her own problems, and little patience for the idea that people owe something to "society" as a whole.

On a different scale, this attitude might help explain the hostility of many in the US towards the United Nations and the opinions of people in other countries. If individual people should do what's in their own best interests, than the same should be true for individual countries. If other people/countries don't like what you're doing, that's their right, but you're sure as hell not going to give up your own best interests just to make others happy.

This sounds grim and bleak to people (including myself) who have been conditioned to accept the standard liberal idea that we should all look out for one another, that to be selfish is bad, etc. On the other hand, who is to say that these people are necessarily wrong? Is there really any hard evidence that cooperation and looking out for others is the one "right" way?

In a sense, this might be seen as a reassertion of the very old American ideal of "rugged individualism" after decades of being out of fashion. Historically, though, "rugged individualism" in most parts of the US was tempered by strong community influences as well - churches, towns, families both extended and nuclear, and a wide variety of voluntary organizations. I think that it might have been de Tocqueville who said that this impulse towards belonging to groups was a good counterweight to rugged individualism in the US and prevented that individualism from degenerating into a total "dog-eat'dog"-style lack of concern for others. If individualism becomes triumphant again without many community influences to mix with it, THAT might not bode well for the US in the future.

PM Nixon

January 3rd, 2004, 06:00 PM

Good points, Xen and Paul. About the POD, I think about the possibilities of MLK living past 1968. I think he would've become a liberal leader in the USA if allowed to live...and if J. Edgar Hoover doesn't discredit him. It is somewhat possible that, if allowed to live, he at least makes an attempt at making the South more moderate than it is IOTL.

Again, as I said earlier, if the GOP gets the White House in 1976, they are as good as screwed in 1980. If a liberal like Edward Kennedy, or someone else like Edmund Muskie or Walter Mondale, gets elected President, then the nation will probably be more liberal than IOTL. As a matter of fact, what Xen said about Ted Kennedy is true; it would be very hard for him to be elected after the 1969 incident. I think then Mondale has a great shot at the nomination in 1980.

1980: Walter Mondale and Edmund Muskie defeat the Republican nominee, who I think would be either Bob Dole or George Bush.

1984: Thanks to a bustling economy, Mondale defeats the Republicans again, possibly one of the two guys listed above.

1988: At this point, Muskie may be considered too old for the Presidency, so the nod from the Democrats is given to either Michael Dukakis or possibly John Glenn. With the Dems winning the Cold War, and the country looking strong again after the debacle of 1979-1980, the Republicans lack the anti-Liberal weapons that Bush had IOTL in 1988. Dukakis wins, and leads America into war against Iraq in 1991.

1992: The economy may be sluggish like IOTL, so the GOP gets the White House back. Unless, of course, Ross Perot runs...and that could mean several things.

Straha

January 3rd, 2004, 06:16 PM

ross perot might take republican votes so we get maybe a gore-clinton ticket?

Xen

January 3rd, 2004, 07:12 PM

I also think America became more conservative in the 1990s because the absolute worst of liberalism reared its ugly head. American's tend to be some what libertarian, we just want to be left alone, however the 1990's saw some pretty stupid stuff. We saw where thieves break into peoples houses and get hurt, then sue the victim and WIN. We saw a woman spill coffee on her lap and sue McDonalds over it and WIN. Alot of the 1990's liberals here seemed to make the victims the criminals, and the criminals the victims. How many times did we hear "So and so committed this crime because society failed him, therefore he should not be punished." Good, hard working Americans began to become bitter as people were not accepting of their responsibilities. Its good to know why they did such things, but its not very good to let them go scot free.

Then we have the prisons, people who break the law go to these multi million dollar facitilies where they have Air conditioning, tennis courts, state of the art libraries and modern computers and three square meals a day. Most Americans who dont break the law dont get it so good, and this upsets them. The Republicans have done a good job of putting it on the Democrats, and the Democrats havent been smart enough to distance themselves from it. Then theres also the military issue, Americans love its military and believes we need a strong one, the liberals believe since the Cold War ended its not necessary, which is a direct affront to the will of the people. Im not trying to insult liberals or anything, but their leaders over the past 20 years have been stupid, out for themselves and have treated the people like they can think for themselves.

Whats harder for the liberals is they are beginning to lose the minorities, the Democrats have an attitude like "You are here because of us, you cant make it without us, you need us to survive, without us youre nothing." While the Republicans are successfully selling individualism "You are your own person, if you put your mind to it you can do it, if the world judges you because you are a minority work that much harder and be a better person for it." Look at the demographics of the politicians in Washington, a good number of the black's are Republicans, and they are taking a leading roll in the party, where as the Democrat Party tends to relegate them to the minor rolls.

The biggest issue really is the leadership of Conservatives and Liberals, the Conservatives know how to appeal to the people, the Liberals know how to appeal to a certain percentage of the people and blow hot air at the others.

Straha

January 3rd, 2004, 07:28 PM

I wonder is there away to distance liberalism from thigns like that??

Xen

January 3rd, 2004, 07:43 PM

Yes but it has to come from the leadership, many individual liberals like their conservative neighbors resent working 40 hours a week to feed their family a meager meal, and have to use fans to keep cool in the summer. There is no easy street for alot of people.

Im not sure if it would work this way but perhaps if they start calling these judges who rule in favor of the criminal in front of them and have him or her explain their reasoning.

If the liberals want to cut the military they have to do it in small doses, Americans cant swallow a big cut. Now after 9-11 talking of cutting the military is like shooting yourself in the foot. Americans right now want a bigger military.

As far as the prisons, instead of them getting the best of the best lets put the state of the art libraries and the brand new computers in the schools and take the schools libraries with the out of date books, and old Apple Computers from the Reagan years in the prisons. It should also be if you commit the crime you do the time for everything except self defense. Its good to know why so and so did this, it helps society help him so he wont do it again, but he still should reap the seeds he sows so to speak.

And most importantly, the minorities arent votes waiting to be harvested, they dont want welfare, they want opportunity. The Republican's are just now begining to figure this one out and are opening up its doors.

Straha

January 3rd, 2004, 08:03 PM

I see your point...

Another way to get a more liberla USA besides president humphrey is to cut the south out of the picture. The jacksonian south with its ideas of dundamentalism,racism,unregulated capitolism and slow change wouldn't be able to influence national policy.

Ian the Admin

January 3rd, 2004, 08:20 PM

hmm... lots of statistics, but not much background. Just why is this disturbing trend supposed to be happening? Is there some vast web of social/economic factors causing it, are we just naturally bad people showing our true colors, or (as some would have it) is it an inevitable consequence of the US achieving independence instead of staying a part of the Empire ( )? So, assuming these trends hold, what will we look like in 100 years?

The guy who wrote the book is a public opinion researcher - he doesn't necessarily know WHY large trends are happening, he just noticed that they were and recorded them in great detail. Explanations are much harder. And BTW the increase of "dog-eat-dog materialism" type opinion in the US is a RECENT trend especially apparent in the 1990s, it's not something that goes back to the founding or that I would expect to continue for another hundred years.

Particularly surprising is the increase in number of people who think violence is a normal, fine thing, because there was a huge increase in this opinion in a time when violent crime was actually dropping. The most obvious thing to pin it on would be the US media's discovery that violence sells in all its forms, especially on the news. If you based your view of US society on what is reported on the news, you'd think the 1990s were a dystopian decade of social disaster in which violence and disaster became ubiquitous and violent crime increased many times over. Canadians watch the same movies and entertainment TV shows but the news is very different. Much less focused on disaster and sensationalism. When I moved to the US and actually saw US domestic TV news for the first time (Fox as it happens), I was floored by how shallow and sensationalistic it is.

However there are other possibilities. A "dog eat dog" and materialistic attitude is more common among poor people struggling to survive, for example. And in the 80s and 90s, there was a significant increase in inequity in the US with the poor getting poorer, especially relative to the rest of society. In Canada and European countries this either isn't happening or is much less pronounced.

As for whether this is bad... well, I think in cases like xenophobia, sexism, and blase acceptance of social problems, it speaks for itself. As for whether materialism or community is better, there's a lot of psychological research on this. It's pretty well established that the more importance a person places on material possessions in their life, the less happy they are.

Straha

January 3rd, 2004, 08:21 PM

no offense even thoguh this discussion on long trends is interesting an all(as well as possible POD fodder) but I'd like to discuss AH ;) :p :D

Ian the Admin

January 3rd, 2004, 08:48 PM

Then we have the prisons, people who break the law go to these multi million dollar facitilies where they have Air conditioning, tennis courts, state of the art libraries and modern computers and three square meals a day.

Or more accurately, you have conservative ideologues who've convinced people that such ludicrous pictures are actually true. Over the past quarter century, the US justice system has gone from being pretty ordinary to being BY FAR the harshest in the developed world. Sentences are far longer than anywhere else for most crimes, far far more people are imprisoned, and prisons are generally overcrowded and suffering from poor conditions due to the prison population expanding faster than prisons can keep up. Crime policy is one HUGE difference between the US and basically any other developed country. To much of the American electorate, there is virtually no such thing as being too tough on crime, and anybody who suggests that the harsh punishments don't actually do anything to reduce the crime rate gets pretty much crucified in public. (It's really quite extreme - criminologists complain that even US government agencies are like a black void where science shall not enter and it is heresy to even seriously ask the question of whether the harsh penalties actually help the crime rates).

I think this (and the great hostility of Americans to antipoverty programs) is ultimately due to racism. The US has a large, poor, and thus disproportionately violence-prone black minority. This means that on average, whenever an American thinks about crime and poverty it's a white person thinking about black crime and black poverty. This makes it much more of an "Us vs. Them" situation than in other countries, and antipoverty programs and less harsh criminal penalties are seen as helping "Them" without doing much for "Us". Even Americans who aren't racist and would quickly deny that crime and poverty are just black problems, retain a view of criminals as "Them", people threatening their community from outside. Even ignoring skin color, segregation and urban decay result in crime being disproportionately concentrated in US inner cities. So Americans are paranoid about "Them" (urban criminals) moving into our suburban neighborhood.

Contrast to Canada just north of the border. Nonwhite minorities are relatively recent arrivals (mostly asians) who aren't strongly associated with poverty and crime, and who aren't so heavily segregated from the rest of the population. Violent crime in Canadian cities is actually LOWER than in rural areas. So the average Canadian doesn't have nearly the "Them" mentality toward poverty and crime that the average American does.

It creates an extremely palpable difference. In the US all politicians want to look "tough on crime", because it can only win you votes. In Canada, if a politician goes on about being "tough on crime" and US style policies, it's a risky move and lots of people will just see it as fearmongering. And politicians espousing US style poverty rhetoric, portraying the poor as lazy bums who need to be given a smaller carrot and a bigger stick to get off welfare, get flooded with criticism about their uncaring attitude toward honest people down on their luck.

Amerigo Vespucci

January 3rd, 2004, 09:01 PM

The US has a large, poor, and thus disproportionately violence-prone black minority.

Whoa, time out. Put an equal amount of white people in the same economic situation, and you'll likely get an equal amount of criminal activity. I know you didn't mean anything, but maybe I just read that wrong.

The government doesn't just ignore science about crime, it also ignores global warming, international issues, and a lot of other things. Asking the government to take science into consideration is like trying to give a cat a bath. Some will accept it, but they're considered wierd. The United States is also the only nation in the world that gasses and lethally injects prisoners. It's really disgusting.

PM Nixon

January 3rd, 2004, 09:33 PM

Hmmm....I sincerly hope this doesn't lead to a flame war. ;)

But I do think that liberal tactics must be changed in order to get a bigger share of the electorate. As it was said earlier, the Democrats can't act as though they have black votes in their pockets. A few more years, and it is quite possible the GOP will get more black votes due to Democratic incompetence at the top. (Terry McAuliffe, I'm looking at you. :D) I really hope my generation can change this chain of thinking in the Democratic Party.

As for Straha's POD, let's look at 1988. If Dukakis answers a particular question about the death penalty, then maybe things are different. Basically, the question revolved around using the death penalty to punish a criminal who had done something to his wife. This hypothetical question's answer from Dukakis, some political scientists believe, was lackluster, without passion, and cost him the election.

Also, I think if a few more liberals thought about saying some things differently during the Cold War, especially about defense spending, taxes, and Vietnam, it is quite possible the US would have a few more liberal presidents.

One more POD I thought about today: What if Teddy Roosevelt wins in 1912? That probably leads to a permanent split in the Republican Party, gives America a progressive, viable third party and gives future liberals a future home. I think more moderates will shift to the Democratic Party, and the Conservatives will make a shift to the Republican Party. With President Roosevelt as a member of the Bull Moose Party, that gives them some real credibility for future American politics.

About crime: I'm pro-death penalty, but I agree that the government must look into how to really reform the system overall. Also, as one poster said earlier, schools should get some of the resources that prisons get, such as good computers and nice libraries.

David Howery

January 3rd, 2004, 10:43 PM

hmm... Ian's big post noted that too many Americans think that immigrants are bad for the country and that violence is ok when you are frustrated. I'd point out that Ian is an immigrant (a refugee from impoverished backward Canada), thus he's bad for the US, which is frustrating. By that logic, then, we should beat him up to feel better ;)

Straha

January 3rd, 2004, 10:46 PM

I kinda hoped the rest of the world would invade the USA after bush violated the UN resolutions. Canada with new england,the pacific northwest,baja,nevada,alaska,hawai,wisconsin,michi gan and bermuda would be paradise

PM Nixon

January 3rd, 2004, 11:13 PM

NapoleonXIV

January 3rd, 2004, 11:14 PM

Is it possible that all this discussion of trends is to put the cart before the horse? Take note of the fact that almost all the examples you cite manifest themselves in ways which have to do with people losing freedom or the guarantees of freedom. And by freedom I mean the ability to actually do something I would logically choose to do, like use the Internet as I choose or express myself as I see fit without directly hurting someone else. I do not mean the freedom to discriminate against someone else, or to force my belief upon them, or the "freedom to fail."

The proximate actual cause of increased conservatism in the 90's was the election of the '94 Congress by a method which at the time was widely criticised and which has never been applied so thoroughly before or since, that is, the running of essentially local elections on a national basis. This one stroke of political genius simultaneously put the Far Right in control of both the House of Congress and the Republican Party, after which they quite quickly passed dozens of sweeping changes to a 200 year old institution all aimed at making their position permanent. The only other significant thing they did was to try to actually unseat an elected president essentially because they disagreed with him. Cooler heads in the Senate prevailed or they would have done so and in 1996 the American people elected a Democratic Centrist who had made the country prosperous. In 2000 we again did the same BUT...

So, in 1994 we have a new type of election followed by sweeping congressional rules engineered by a politician who, (politically ONLY mind you, otherwise he was a decent guy, I don't want a flame war over this, my personal opinion ENTIRELY, and I mean it in a good way), resembles Adolf Hitler more than any other US politician I ever saw. They do their best to insulate themselves from the consequences of any more elections and then try their best to unseat an elected sitting President. Then in 2000 we have another election in which machinations worthy of Justinian combine with obscure rules passed 200 years ago to result in the guy who got 500,000 LESS votes winning.

THAT'S a disturbing trend to me. A small and vociferous elite who don't represent the majority and know it very well have captured the country and are succeeding in making it their own. People will try to take our freedoms, that's not a trend, its been a sad fact forever.

Oh and uh...right AH :rolleyes: The POD is 1992, Newt Gingrich proposes the 1994 campaign to certain colleagues but some actually tell certain Republican Senators. Horrified, a bipartisan majority passes campaign reform specifically aimed at making it hard for national orgs to steamroller local candidates. Gingrich later becomes a perennial candidate for President and writes a series of AH WWII bestsellers upon retirement in 2004.

PM Nixon

January 3rd, 2004, 11:21 PM

Interesting Napoleon. I had thought that the results of the 1994 elections, could not be averted without some sort of POD from the 70s or 80s. That really cemented Conservatism into American thought as it is today, giving a push from Reagan's administration and the tax revolts of the late 1970s.

Paul Spring

January 4th, 2004, 12:02 AM

Straha

January 4th, 2004, 12:11 AM

*ahem* get back on topic

Xen

January 4th, 2004, 12:36 AM

Paul Spring

January 4th, 2004, 12:39 AM

If you mean "liberal" in the sense of having a more socialized economy, with stronger government regulation, higher taxes, more social engineering, etc, then I just don't see it happening. The New Deal/Great Society kind of liberalism was such a turn away from the ideas of individualism that were traditionally strong in the US that a backlash against them was inevitable, especially when it became more and more obvious that they couldn't deliver on their promises and were actually having the opposite effect to what was intended.

If you mean "liberal" in the sense of a more laid back and permissive society, that's a lot more likely. Ironically, one way to do this might be to have many of the "mainstream" protestant churches in the US remain more conservative for a longer period of time. In OTL, some churches had moved so far in a liberal direction by the 1960s that millions of people began to desert them, and moved to churches that had a fundamentalist bent to them. This helped lay the groundwork for what would later be called the "Christian Right". In the same vein, if you removed or lessened the impact of some of the more traumatic events of the 20th century - Great Depression, WWII, Cold War, the turbulence of the 60s - you might get actually get a more permissive society now, because you wouldn't have strong conservative "backlashes" against liberal trends.

Straha

January 4th, 2004, 12:44 AM

have the CSA out of the country and youu could get both

David Howery

January 4th, 2004, 02:33 AM

PM> it's all in fun. I don't think anyone takes me seriously. I don't think I've really offended any of the non-Americans on the list. If I have, well then we should invade their country and send them all to the salt mines for having no sense of humor :)

PM Nixon

January 4th, 2004, 03:03 AM

Straha

January 4th, 2004, 03:07 AM

goddamit all I want is some F&%#ing AH scenario ideas and all I get is a F^$*ing flamewar :mad:

PM Nixon

January 4th, 2004, 03:14 AM

goddamit all I want is some F&%#ing AH scenario ideas and all I get is a F^$*ing flamewar :mad:

On behalf of the other board members, I must apologize. I agree, we MUST get on topic. The scary thing is that no one's warmed up for battle yet.

As for AH, this might be of interest to you: what if the Socialists take off in the USA? I think the best chance for this is in the early 20th century, maybe with a larger, more intense labor movement. Or, maybe the lack of a New Deal and Great Society could lead to a liberal America TODAY. If America's more conservative early on, thanks to no Great Depression or lack of a strong Civil Rights movement, then you could have a backlash against Conservatism, and the beginnings of a large scale liberal movement.

Straha

January 4th, 2004, 03:19 AM

PM Nixon

January 4th, 2004, 03:31 AM

in a world where the CSA is independent the socialists would take off. THey'd probably be able ot disassociate thmeselves enoguh from communims so that soem of the strongest red-bashers would be socialists

You're probably right. But, I'd like to see America be more liberal without losing the South. Maybe some sort of Populist movement comes about in the South, like the one in the late 19th century. Or, Reconstruction goes alot better and the South, somehow, becomes more tolerant.

Hmm....this just popped into my head. Maybe avoiding the Civil War makes the nation more liberal. Lincoln loses in 1860, war is averted, no Reconstruction, no permanent bad feelings between North and South....maybe the lack of rapidly diverging political views?

Straha

January 4th, 2004, 03:36 AM

how about a reconstruction thats actually sucessful?

Beck Reilly

January 4th, 2004, 03:43 AM

So you want a Populist movement in the South...

Huey Long, a known populist Democrat, wins the election of 1924 and becomes Governor of Louisiana four years early. In OTL, he lost this election. But, we have a younger more idealistic Huey Long as the governor. His entire political career is accelerated by four years. His reforms leave Louisiana in better shape than the rest of the nation when the Great Depression hits in 1928. Our younger Huey Long never becomes quite as authoritarian as he became in OTL. With the arrival of the stock market crash, Huey Long is seen as somewhat of a 'prophet' for building the structure to handle the crisis in Louisiana. He is nominated by the Democrats in 1932 over Franklin Roosevelt, who the public sees as a 'rich boy' and, thus, he is assured the election (no Republican was going to win that election no matter who the Democrats ran). He is in office in early 1933 and begins the same reforms he began in Louisiana throughout the entire nation, including desegregation by the mid-1940s. He handles WW2 well and is reelected repeatedly before deciding to end his Presidency in 1948...

voila, a more liberal America

PM Nixon

January 4th, 2004, 03:47 AM

Beck Reilly

January 4th, 2004, 03:48 AM

I don't know how successful they'd be nationally but I know that they were extremely successful in Louisiana. Some of his stuff seems rather like Roosevelt's 'New Deal' but more practical.

Straha

January 4th, 2004, 03:50 AM

soudns like a decent idea

Derek Jackson

February 5th, 2004, 02:38 PM

I think that there were three factors in the grown of America's pretty extreme form of conservatism. One was Monetarism

Secondly Conservatives from the 70s REALLY got themselves organized

Thirdly Liberals and Progressives have ALLOWED themselves to be intimidated

Mike Collins

February 5th, 2004, 03:00 PM

Im gonna take a different course on this one just to think out of the box!

Read a book years back called Vietnam: The Necessary War by a guy named Lindh. He went into surprisingly great depth on the different political mindsets in America. He goes somewhat like this. The Northeast culture is liberal because it was colonized by people from East Enlgand (mostly) who left the Old Country for moral/spiritual reasons (pilgrims) and tended to be more communal. The South was colonized by folks from South and West England who came for commercial reasons and tended to be culturally more militaristic. There is also a "Highland" culture in parts of the South (Texas High Country, Arkansas, Tennessee are examples) that came from Scots/Irish immigrants. Its a combination of both but leans towards the conservative/militarist tendencies of the South. As the US expanded, New Englanders colonized the Northern Tier and the Southerners colonized to South and Southwest. Lindh doesnt get much into which is dominant. He more focused on there being a constant friction between North and South. But I would agree from my experience that Americans tend to be more conservative than the other Western nations.

What if the people from South and West England went to South Africa or India instead of the American colonies and there was a bigger influx of East Engalnders and Scots/Irish? That might bring the USA more in line with the rest of the Western Nations.

DominusNovus

February 6th, 2004, 04:03 AM

Quick question.
Am I the only one who seems to find the majority of the changes in the US, cited by Ian to be postive? :D

(I'll get you your flamewar, PM)

Wombat

February 7th, 2004, 12:27 AM

I think part of the problem may lay with the US's lack of a labor Party, together with the poor light that unions are seen in, unlike most English speaking western democracies. As a result socialism tends to be equated with communism, and the collapse of the soviet union means therefore that socialism - which = communism in a lot of peoples minds - (and its implications of caring for the havenots of society) is therefore perceived to weak/flawed/stupid. This would explain the changes Ian has qouted for the past decade or so. So having said that an organised political party to represent the rights of the working man that attracts broad support could possibly result in a more liberal US.

Its interesting to compare some of the changes - despite a tightening up Australia still has more generous unemployment assistamne than the US, yet has roughly the same percentage unemployed. We have a deeply conservative political leader (at least compared to his predeccessors ove the last 30 years) in John Howard who actually pushed through MUCH tougher gun laws than the US, and was able to get widespread popular support, despite the fact the gun buy-back was funded via a surcharge on the medicare levy (for the unitiated medicare is Australia's universal health system). Surveys in Australia have indicated the majority of Australians would rather see increases in health and education than minor tax cuts.

Also, compulsory voting means that those elected have to take in to account the views of ALL Australians, rather than just those who vote, as in the US.

Having said that, I think the trend towards conservatism is a world wide phenomena. Look at the growth of the right in France, for that matter here in Australia (one nation - Australia's home grown far right party, attracted approx 600 000 votes a few years ago - a large number when there are only about 12 million voters). I think 911 and Bali have accelerated this process - it has tended to make many westerners xenophobic, and equate all muslims with terrorism. Fear has made people insular.

DominusNovus

February 7th, 2004, 03:22 AM

Grey Wolf

February 7th, 2004, 03:35 AM

Interestingly, here in the Uk because of the rightwards shift of the Labour Party several unions have allowed their branches to affiliate to other parties than the Labour Party - eg the Scottish Socialist Party. Today the Labour Party has tried to ban the whole union (RMT) - if it succeeds it will see a steady exodus of other unions which can no longer in this day and age support the Labour Party simply on the basis that they have always done so. It ought to make politics more interesting, but the right wing shift of Labour under Blair means that they get most of their monies for election years from business and special interests. So it will simply be a sign that Blair is a Tory at heart and nothing much in reality, except the SSP will get a bit more money that it would have done otherwise

Grey Wolf

Stalin

February 7th, 2004, 03:37 AM

Well, I can't speak for foreign nations, but labor unions in the US tend to be pretty bad and corrupt on their own, and kinda deserve to be looked down upon. My mother used to have union fees that were about equal to her paycheck (after insurance was taken out). This same union promotes poltical candidates that my mother doesn't support. Hell, my grandfather was a union leader and even he hated unions.

Then there's the mob ties...

Yes, I definitely think that if anything the corruption of unions and the death of the "Old-left" contributed to the decline of Liberalism in the US. Liberalism took on a less respectable, "peacenik" reputation among a lot of people. Think about it, we went from having FDR, Truman, and Kennedy to having... Jimmy Carter. Perhaps if we were to limit the corruption of the unions, eliminate Vietnam and other factors that led to the "New Left", and give it a more populist bent than in OTL and it could drastically improve in its influence and popularity in the USA.

Come to think of it, Liberalism really only declined towards the end of the Cold War, oddly enough...

Ian the Admin

February 7th, 2004, 04:55 AM

I think this (and the great hostility of Americans to antipoverty programs) is ultimately due to racism. The US has a large, poor, and thus disproportionately violence-prone black minority.

Ian, I honestly wonder if you're just unlucky in the people you have met, or whether you had a hostile opinion of the US to begin with and deliberately ignore Americans you meet who don't conform to that opinion. I hate to rain on your parade, but the fact is that most people in the US just don't particularly like people who do things like murder and rape, regardless of whether they're white, black, or whatever shade of color.

My opinion is based on reading loads of social science and opinion surveys (some of which I referred to earlier in this thread). Racism isn't something unique to Americans. Especially the mild sort of racism of a person who would never actually vote for segregation or something like that, but does have an instinctive dislike/distrust of people of different races. It is EXTREMELY common in societies (not just the US) for people to have an instinctively greater dislike/distrust of other races, viewing them more of an "outsider" group rather than one of "us". Even if they intellectually believe in equality, even if they can make friends with individuals of other races once they've gotten to know them, the negative attitudes are still there very very often. More negative attitudes toward people who obviously seem "outsiders" (another race, culture, religion, etc) are basically a fundamental and common element of human psychology.

But while such reactions are found to some extent all over the place, it is the US which actually has a large, obvious racial minority that remains highly segregated and impoverished at the end of the 20th century. Basically race continues to have a big and obvious presence in US society in a way which it doesn't elsewhere. And this isn't just an effect that produces difference between nations. I've seen research indicating that within the US, the level of prejudice among whites is associated with the number of black people living nearby. The more blacks, the more prejudice, and not just in the south.

Specifically, when an Americans thinks of criminals or poor people, it usually means a white American thinking of black criminals and poor black people. And not in proportion to reality, either - research has shown that Americans consistently overestimate the portion of criminals and welfare recipients that are black. So basically when an American today thinks of poverty and crime, they're more likely than people in other countries to consider those things the problem of an "outsider" group. Someone who is not like them. So the dislike and distrust of outsiders gets heaped on top of the normal distrust of criminals and poor people. This isn't speculation - psychological experiments have shown that Americans really are disproportionately likely to think of blacks when they think of crime or welfare. Some of the stuff is really interesting. For example there was one experiment where (IIRC - it's been a while since I read it) after watching news reports about criminals, people were likely to "remember" more of the criminals being black than actually were.

To get more specific, it's quite true that people don't like murderers and rapists of any color. But I wasn't talking about murder and rape, crimes which are punished severely around the world. The US doesn't stand out for its treatment of murderers and rapists (it often applies the death penalty, but it's not like long prison terms are a slap on the wrist). It stands out for its treatment of nonviolent offenders, and non-criminal poor people. Basically, for people who have problems but are not great dangers to society. When they think of such "borderline cases", people are more likely to be sympathetic and assume the best about others who are similar to themselves, and to be harsh and assume the worst about others who are very different from themselves. Most Americans think of criminals and poor people as being more different from themselves - darker colored, for starters, though also more urban - than people in other countries do.

Abdul Hadi Pasha

February 7th, 2004, 05:18 AM

Let's be honest, though, white anxieties are not entirely unjustified; 90% of interracial crimes are committed against whites, and the rate at which the white percentage of the population is shrinking is disconcerting, and would be anywhere - in fact it would likely be violently resisted just about anywhere else. Whites will be a minority in about 50 years - I'd like to see ths French reaction if that happened in France.

That "legalized crimes" are committed against minorites consistently is more or less inarguable, but this is not likely to be perceived by the public.

There is really nothing that can be done about the sense of "other"; it is human nature, and in any case is not limited to being an interracial phenomenon.

Beck Reilly

February 7th, 2004, 05:46 AM

But while such reactions are found to some extent all over the place, it is the US which actually has a large, obvious racial minority that remains highly segregated and impoverished at the end of the 20th century.

Races in America are not segregated. Segregation implies enforcement. Races in America are seperated a lot of the time, yes, but they are not segregated. Also, as for that seperation, it is an almost natural occurence. As long as it doesn't get out of hand (i.e. forced segregation, unjust bias, etc., etc.), it is only natural for human beings (and all natural species for that matter) to congregate into groups based on similarities. Your psychological examples prove this. Just because they congregate into seperate groups, that does not make either "group" racist.

Basically race continues to have a big and obvious presence in US society in a way which it doesn't elsewhere.

Nope. That's where your wrong. Every nation has conflict between races simply because those races, generally, have different goals and agendas. Stick two groups with different objectives together for long enough, and you're going to get a fight. It's unstoppable and natural. No matter which group is in the right, they will come into conflict.

Examples of other nations with race problems: France (French vs. Algerians) / Germany (Germans vs. Turks) / Russia (Russians vs. Chechans) / Yugoslavia (Muslims vs. Christians / Israel (Jews vs. Muslims). There are countless other examples.

Most Americans think of criminals and poor people as being more different from themselves - darker colored, for starters, though also more urban - than people in other countries do.

Nope. The examples of above prove this wrong. The only reason why Americans, in your opinion, view blacks as criminals more than other nations is: A) when you turn on the news, it does sometimes appear that blacks commit a disporportionate amount of crimes (whether it's true or not I don't know), and B) there just aren't that many black people in Europe. Here they make up >12% of our population. There they make up <4% of the population.

Michael E Johnson

February 7th, 2004, 11:09 PM

---and the rate at which the white percentage of the population is shrinking is disconcerting----

Why is that? Afraid you couldnt handle losing both (in)equality of opportunity ( better opportunities) and outcome (top of the heap)? White -Americans really dont have to worry about their descendants being in the minority in the US-no matter what that old Sci-fi show Time Trax depicted. We minorites will be sure our descendants practice " delayed Chrisitan charity" as you have done and treat your decendants the same as we were treated :D

Grey Wolf

February 7th, 2004, 11:20 PM

Races in America are not segregated. Segregation implies enforcement. Races in America are seperated a lot of the time, yes, but they are not segregated. Also, as for that seperation, it is an almost natural occurence. As long as it doesn't get out of hand (i.e. forced segregation, unjust bias, etc., etc.), it is only natural for human beings (and all natural species for that matter) to congregate into groups based on similarities. Your psychological examples prove this. Just because they congregate into seperate groups, that does not make either "group" racist. .

Well, I might agree with the final point, but I am not sure I see at all that it is 'natural' for people of different races to not mix. I live in an area where Asians, black, chinese and white all mix. In my small street half are black, half are white and there's a Chinese family too. It doesn't feel at all weird, its just how it is....

Nope. That's where your wrong. Every nation has conflict between races simply because those races, generally, have different goals and agendas. Stick two groups with different objectives together for long enough, and you're going to get a fight. It's unstoppable and natural. No matter which group is in the right, they will come into conflict. .

Um, what agenda does a black family have in the area I live in ? Or an Asian one or a Chinese one ?
I am not sure your argument works for different ethnicities living within one country

Grey Wolf

Michael E Johnson

February 7th, 2004, 11:25 PM

--Races in America are not segregated. Segregation implies enforcement. Races in America are seperated a lot of the time, yes, but they are not segregated. Also, as for that seperation, it is an almost natural occurence. As long as it doesn't get out of hand (i.e. forced segregation, unjust bias, etc., etc.), it is only natural for human beings (and all natural species for that matter) to congregate into groups based on similarities. ----

Incredible! Where do you think this "seperation " in America comes from? It is directly descended from "enforced segreagtion" The reason it still exists today is because of something called white flight-that means when legal segregation was ended in the 1960's and 1970's and blacks could finally move into white neighborhoods,whites ran away to the suburbs as fast as they could so they wouldnt have to live next to blacks or have thier children go to school with them. Apologism is always cute but it doesnt work here -the main reason for neighborhood segregation,like so many other inequalities in this land,are layed at the feet of white racism.

ps since its Feburary maybe,you know for shits and giggles, reading some books about the black experience in the US would help you get more informed on these issues?

Akiyama

February 8th, 2004, 12:52 AM

A more liberal America - easy!

Sometime in the 1990s Rupert Murdoch (Fox TV/New York Post and other media in the US and around the world) has a heart attack or a fatal accident. News International shares plunge as his underlings fight each other rather than working together, plus, they don't have Rupert's business sense, plus, maybe they discover he's from the Conrad Black/Robert Maxwell school of creative accounting.

George Soros (billionaire stock market genius and liberal do-gooder) uses his vast personal fortune to buy a commanding share in NI, and suddenly some media that used to be conservative are now liberal. Over the years, I would have thought this was bound to have an effect on US public opinion.

BTW, for those of you who think US prisons are too comfy I can recommend a recent first-hand account "You Got Nothing Coming" by Jimmy A. Lerner. Read it.

Gedca

February 8th, 2004, 02:39 AM

As to a POD perhaps if America remains attached to Britain longer. :D

DominusNovus

February 8th, 2004, 03:17 AM

NapoleonXIV

February 8th, 2004, 03:19 AM

Let's be honest, though, white anxieties are not entirely unjustified; 90% of interracial crimes are committed against whites,

Uh...who else could they be committed against? Blacks are still a minority so if there are interracial crimes of one against another at all they will disproportionately seem to be of the smaller against the larger if you consider rates alone. Examine the raw nos and I think the picture will be different. I've seen this example before. A math major might be helpful here to explain this to us as yet another example of "figures don't lie but liars figure"

OTOH
The reason it still exists today is because of something called white flight-that means when legal segregation was ended in the 1960's and 1970's and blacks could finally move into white neighborhoods,whites ran away to the suburbs as fast as they could so they wouldnt have to live next to blacks or have thier children go to school with them. Apologism is always cute but it doesnt work here -the main reason for neighborhood segregation,like so many other inequalities in this land,are layed at the feet of white racism.

How is it racism to flee from people who make no secret of their hatred and violent hostility towards you? My grandmother of 90 was the last white resident in an all black neighborhood until the gang members actually told her they would kill her if she stayed. Imagine being forced to leave where you had grown up and stayed all your life, and the b*****ds acted like they were doing her a favor! People don't sell their homes at a loss and leave on a whim, but self-preservation overrides most other instincts.

Grey Wolf

February 8th, 2004, 03:39 AM

Here's an interesting statistic for you guys:
10 years ago,
40% of Americans identified with the Republican Party
49% identified with the Democrat Party
Now,
45.5% of Americans identify with the Republican Party
45.2% of Americans identify with the Democrat Party

Really interesting, considering that the Republicans won Congress 10 years ago.

Um given that statistical margins of error are usually around 3% I am not sure this is statistically valid as an indication of anything much in particular

Grey Wolf

DominusNovus

February 8th, 2004, 03:59 AM

Um given that statistical margins of error are usually around 3% I am not sure this is statistically valid as an indication of anything much in particular

Grey Wolf
Well, it does sinc up with Ian's stats fairly well.

David Howery

February 8th, 2004, 04:09 AM

The subject of racial attitudes came up in a thread on the other board. Somewhat ignored among all the arguing was an encouraging fact that someone brought up: racism is lessening among the youth of America. I can't remember the exact figures, but there was a substantial divide between old and young about such things as interracial dating, etc. Best of all, the number of young people who are positive about such things has increased quite a bit over the past 20 years. Hopefully, by the time that whites in America are a distinct minority, most of the people who hold strong racist attitudes will have died off; quite a distinct possibility, as most of those with strong racist attitudes are in the older age groups....

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 07:34 AM

legal segregation was ended in the 1960's and 1970's and blacks could finally move into white neighborhoods

I have a question that has sort of always puzzled me. Now, don't take offense to this, and I know you probably will, but I dont mean any disrespect or anything by it. Okay, here I go.

Okay. It's 1963. Let's say, I'm black. The governor of my state, let's say Alabama, is right now standing in the doorstep of the university, personally blocking the doorway of the school in order to not allow a black student to enter. Now, the question is, with all these angry white Alabamans surrounding me, yelling nasty things at me, obviously not wanting me there, why do I want to go there??? And for that matter, why would I want to move into a white neighborhood in 1963 when I am not wanted by much of the populace???

Now, I know the white neighborhoods probably had better living conditions and all, but rather than moving into the white neighborhoods where, at the time, I am not wanted, why wouldn't I just achieve the equal rights which I deserve and then work real hard to build up the living standards of my own neighborhood???

Wombat

February 8th, 2004, 08:14 AM

OK, I won't take offence and I'll try to answer calmly.

Why shouldn't I go to university? And if I'm going to uni them why shouldn't I go to the best one I can? And who is some pig-ignorant redneck who probably didn't go to university himself to tell me where I can and can't go. That in itself would make me dig my heels in - if I'm right and someone else is wrong then I am not going to give in. After all, I'm a citizen, my parents/siblings pay taxes why shouldn't I enjoy the same opportunities as everyone else.

And the same applies to where I live. I'm educated, intelligent, well spoken, have a good job. Why shouldn't I live in a nice area now. Do you think a governor like the one you describe is going to worry about sewers, gutters or any of the basic infrastructure in a black area? No, coz the african-americans are never going to vote for a dumb peice of shit like that. So I'm going to move to a nice area now. And why should I have to wait for the same basic services whites take for granted? I want them now - After all I pay the same taxes.

Giving in to ignorance and prejudice is moral cowardice. If I'm going to be able to look at myself in the mirror I HAVE to stand up and say this is wrong. Because if I don't how can I expect anyone else to?

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 08:23 AM

Okay, I guess I understand, to an extent. It's just not in my nature, whether you call it moral cowardice or not, to go where I am not wanted by a vocal majority. I'd rather build up the standards of living in my own neighborhood, rather than move to another one where I'm not wanted. But I do see your point.

BTW, the governor I described, George Corley Wallace, was not a "pig-ignorant redneck" nor a "dumb piece of shit." He did block the doorway to the University of Alabama in 196 and only gave up after being confronted by the Army. He was educated at the University of Alabama and reelected Governor in 1982 by one of the widest margins in Alabama history - thanks to the overwhelming support of the black population.

Wombat

February 8th, 2004, 11:17 AM

You said "Now, the question is, with all these angry white Alabamans surrounding me, yelling nasty things at me, obviously not wanting me there, why do I want to go there??? " I assumed at least some of these people did not have a degree.

Excluding someone on the basis of race meets my definition of pig ignorant redneck. The fact he ended up attarcting the black vote in 1982 just goes to show the fickleness of politicians - either that or he had an epiphany to equal that of St Paul's.

MerryPrankster

February 8th, 2004, 05:11 PM

" either that or he had an epiphany to equal that of St Paul's."

Wombat, he actually did; it came after he was nearly killed (and was crippled). After that, he was MUCH more sensitive to the concerns of blacks and was widely supported by those he previously oppressed.

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 05:21 PM

---Okay, I guess I understand, to an extent. It's just not in my nature, whether you call it moral cowardice or not, to go where I am not wanted by a vocal majority. I'd rather build up the standards of living in my own neighborhood, rather than move to another one where I'm not wanted. But I do see your point.----

This attitude you see displayed here is the reason that racism predominated in this country in the past and continues today.Millions of whites comfortable with their bigotry and blaming African -Americans for making an "issue" about it by trying to change things-truly pathetic.But then again pandering to that attitude was how Barry Goldwater ,Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and both George Bush's have turned Dixie into GOPland-so at least its politically useful-now if only theyd own up to it they wouldnt be hypocrites.

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 05:34 PM

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 05:47 PM

But then again pandering to that attitude was how Barry Goldwater ,Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and both George Bush's have turned Dixie into GOPland-so at least its politically useful-now if only theyd own up to it they wouldnt be hypocrites.

HAHA, that's a laugh. Barry Goldwater was in no way, shape, or form a racist. He did not argue for segregation. He was an ultra-conservative who was known for his firm-advocacy of states' rights. His support from the South was merely an extension of that advocacy. He did not believe that segregation was right, but he believed it was the states' job to eliminate, not the federal government.

Richard Nixon was also not a racist. He may have slowed the pace of integration, but only to stabilize what was then a nation in crisis. He followed through with integration just the same, a policy followed by his Republican successors, Reagan among them. Is it just me, or was Nixon not reelected by one the widest margins in the history of the election process? I believe he lost only one state... As for his abhorence to busing, busing was a ridiculously stupid attempt to "diversify" public schools. All that nut Garrity achieved was breaking the city of Boston. The population of Boston is still but half of what it was in the 1960s. R

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 05:57 PM

----HAHA, that's a laugh. Barry Goldwater was in no way, shape, or form a racist. He did not argue for segregation. He was an ultra-conservative who was known for his firm-advocacy of states' rights. His support from the South was merely an extension of that advocacy. He did not believe that segregation was right, but he believed it was the states' job to eliminate, not the federal government----

No this is a laugh.Anyone with even a passing knowledge of American history knows that by 1964 when Goldwater ran "states rights" was code in the South for maintaining the racist Jim Crow structure. There is no way in hell that the Southern states would have eliminated segregation on their own and they had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the federal government. Goldwater,Nixon and the GOP pandered to this fear and its the main reason that the GOP has carried the white South every since. And to the rest of the apologists and denialists here it's also why despite having a large number of social conservatives-African-Americans support the Democrats year after year. Yeah I know it sucks-you cant honestly blame it on Jesse Jackson ,Al Sharpton and the NAACP fooling black voters-but I know that wont stop you from trying :o

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 06:10 PM

The fact that you label Barry Goldwater a racist as you do shows nothing more than the effectiveness of that scumbag, Lyndon Johnson's ad campaign. Everyone gives Goldwater such shit now for just about everything, but how often do you hear of Johnson hunting deer from a jeep with a machine gun (which he did do), or giving an interview while getting a colonoscopy (which he did). Barry Goldwater was not a racist. He was simply one of the last in a long string of men to try (and to fail) at defending states' rights.

You know, you may call me an "apologist" or "denialist," which I suspect is simply a thinly veiled way of calling me a racist, but you do know, however, that you are even more biased than I am??

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 06:23 PM

---Barry Goldwater was not a racist. He was simply one of the last in a long string of men to try (and to fail) at defending states' rights. ---

You know I never had dinner with Barry,although I'm sure that he had lots of African-American freinds :rolleyes: ,so I dont know myself if he was personally racist. What I do know however is that he and the GOP chose sides on the race issue in the United States. Instead of standing up for black civil rights after they had been trampled for 100 years,he and the GOP( and Strom Thurmond before them) took sides with the white South,under the code of "states rights", to try and keep things they way they were with as little change as possible. So maybe he wasnt personally racist ( :rolleyes: ) but he pandered to racists and dealt with racists at the expense of people who just wanted a chance to live their lives with the same opportunites and rewards as everyone else.For that he and the GOP have my utter contempt-as does anyone who tries to justify and minimize what they did then and continue to do.

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 06:29 PM

Instead of standing up for black civil rights after they had been trampled for 100 years,he and the GOP

What party did Abraham Lincoln, the man who was the single greatest factor in the abolition of slavery, belong to.......?

The Republican Party.

tom

February 8th, 2004, 06:44 PM

My negro college professor told how his mother wept the first time she voted Democrat.

NapoleonXIV

February 8th, 2004, 06:46 PM

--How is it racism to flee from people who make no secret of their hatred and violent hostility towards you?---

This really has to be one of the most cynical ,Orwellian things I have ever heard on this board or anywhere.Let the record show that it was WHITE people who ran from neighborhoods where blacks and other minorites moved in because of THEIR hatred and hostility towards non-whites NOT the other way around.It should also be noted that despite the neighborhood that you describe not every neighborhoord that blacks moved into became a crime -ridden ghetto-although thats got to be one of the oldest racist arguments.

Cynical or Orwellian it also seems a question you apparently cannot answer. I maintain that the majority of white people move from their homes out of fear, hatred and/or hostility to your neighbors alone is not enough.

As proof of this I submit your own observation that not every neighborhood that blacks move into becomes a crime ridden ghetto. The majority of such neighborhoods, in fact, do not. They are not noticed because they do not become black neighborhoods, rather reflecting accurately the nationwide racial ratios that exist. (Please note; I am NOT saying that all black neighborhoods are or become crime ridden, again,the majority are not but we do not notice them, good news, truly, is no news) In most cases, the majority of the whites remain, fear subsides with contact, hatred and hostility usually wouldn't.

If whites do flee because of fear, than it is a fear that is not justified by the facts. Why? I submit we might better make an effort to find a reason for this rather than simply ascribing all evil in the world to white racism.

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 06:52 PM

How is it racism to flee from people who make no secret of their hatred and violent hostility towards you?

It's not racist. How could it be? If the whites were racist simply for this, wouldn't they not let the blacks into their neighborhoods to begin with? I know they tried to stop it, but if they were truly racist, wouldn't they never give up? Or, to be crude, wouldn't they drive the blacks out? Just leaving is not racist. It is an attempt to avoid hostile confrontation.

Grey Wolf

February 8th, 2004, 06:56 PM

Personally I would address the Goldwater questions simply on this basis

1. If states rights was allowed to be supreme, would segregation have ended ?

2. If not, then support for states rights is de facto support for racism

3. If it is obvious that 1 would have not have occurred and that 2 is therefore true, surely anybody standing on a policy of states rights KNOWS that they are also standing on a policy of segregation ?

4. Since segregation is clearly wrong (unless someone actually wants to argue otherwise) then it needed to be got rid of, especially in the atmosphere of the 1960s which could frequently turn violent, and where MLK's leadership was often the only thing preventing the whole movement turning violent

5. If its wrong, and states rights won't stop it, and it needs to be dealt with somewhat pressingly, then only the federal government can handle this

Grey Wolf

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 06:59 PM

---What party did Abraham Lincoln, the man who was the single greatest factor in the abolition of slavery, belong to.......?

The Republican Party.---

And the Democratic party supported slavery ,the Confederacy and segregation- so what? The Republican and Democratic parties of the last 40 years and today arent the same as they were in the 1860's.Starting with Barry Goldwater and when Strom Thurmond becamed Republican they switched places and roles. Which is why the Republicans win the white South and Democrats win the black vote.

---My negro college professor told how his mother wept the first time she voted Democrat. ----

You know the same answer as above applies here. However I have to say that if you seriously refer to African-American people as "negro" (to their face especially) in 2004 you have a problem. If its cynical an attempt to express disdain-its fully returned :D

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 07:00 PM

Segregation would have fallen without the federal government intervening, just as slavery would have fallen without the federal government intervening. It may have taken a decade or two, but it would have happened. Segregation, like slavery, was becoming increasingly infeasible. Whether the whites of the South were racist or not (they, obviously, were), segregation simply takes up too much time and effort. In the modern United States, even the whites of the South, like the whites of South Africa (which is an excellent example of segregation collapsing under its own weight), would see that it would be much more politically and economically useful to remove segregation, albeit somewhat later and slower.

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 07:07 PM

---Cynical or Orwellian it also seems a question you apparently cannot answer. I maintain that the majority of white people move from their homes out of fear, hatred and/or hostility to your neighbors alone is not enough.

If whites do flee because of fear, than it is a fear that is not justified by the facts. Why? I submit we might better make an effort to find a reason for this rather than simply ascribing all evil in the world to white racism.----

Lets try it again. The "fear" that racist whites had when they left wasnt entirely of crime ,it was of living with black people and having their kids go to school with them. Who knows they might have liked them or actually wanted to have sex with or marry them? But wether the whites fled because of fear of crime,hatred or hostility it was all based on racism. All the evil in the US,at least as far as black people are concerned, isnt because white racism but most of it is.And attempting to deny it or misdirect it is not only cynical and Orwellian but also disgusting.

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 07:09 PM

---It's not racist. How could it be? If the whites were racist simply for this, wouldn't they not let the blacks into their neighborhoods to begin with? I know they tried to stop it, but if they were truly racist, wouldn't they never give up? Or, to be crude, wouldn't they drive the blacks out? Just leaving is not racist. It is an attempt to avoid hostile confrontation.---

pathetic

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 07:10 PM

---Segregation would have fallen without the federal government intervening, just as slavery would have fallen without the federal government intervening. It may have taken a decade or two, but it would have happened. Segregation, like slavery, was becoming increasingly infeasible. Whether the whites of the South were racist or not (they, obviously, were), segregation simply takes up too much time and effort. In the modern United States, even the whites of the South, like the whites of South Africa (which is an excellent example of segregation collapsing under its own weight), would see that it would be much more politically and economically useful to remove segregation, albeit somewhat later and slower.----

Even more pathetic

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 07:11 PM

pathetic

I'm sorry. I don't see what's wrong whites leaving those neighborhoods. Aren't they, like blacks, allowed to live wherever they choose? If they choose to leave, that is their choice, and their's alone.

Abdul Hadi Pasha

February 8th, 2004, 07:12 PM

Whites comprise 76% percent of the population, so if whites suffer 90% of interracial crime, they are suffering at double the rate of members of minorities. In addition, interracial crimes are overwhelmingly an urban phenomenon, where the proporition of whites is far lower than in the population as a whole.

Whites are no longer in the majority in California, our largest state. It is not Sci Fi, it is simply the case that whites will no longer be in the majority by 2050, unless something dramatically changes population trends.

A radical shift in the ethnic balance of any state will be destabilizing, and disconcerting. I don't see why it's rocket science to recognize this. It creates problems that have to be dealt with constructively, rather than sitting back and blaming whitey for everything bad that has ever happened.

And let's not pretend that blacks aren't racist too. You can make a presumption of permanent innocence based on slavery, but that doesn't nake it true and it certainly won't facilitate improived race relations if the "race card" is played any time a black person doesn't get what they want or are subjected to the same standards as whites.

I'm still waiting for someone to claim it's racist that Janet Jackson is under pressure while Justin Timberlake is off the hook.

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 07:14 PM

---I'm sorry. I don't see what's wrong whites leaving those neighborhoods. Aren't they, like blacks, allowed to live wherever they choose? If they choose to leave, that is their choice, and their's alone.---

And denying that they left mainly because of racism is apologism and its very pathetic.Any questions?

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 07:17 PM

Grey Wolf

February 8th, 2004, 07:20 PM

Abdul Hadi Pasha

February 8th, 2004, 07:22 PM

---if the "race card" is played any time a black person doesn't get what they want or are subjected to the same standards as whites.---

Actually this is the one of the "race cards " that whites ( and they have a full deck)constantly use to condemn affirmative action and to claim that racism isnt an issue in the US anymore,at least as far as poor, persecucted whites are concerned.I'm really not surprised to see it used here.

Well, don't be. "Racism" is called with such ubiquity that nobody pays proper attention when there is a legitimate problem. You just did it above with the parenthetical remark (and they have a full deck).

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 07:22 PM

...apologism and its very pathetic....

Could you please do me the courtesy of answering with something better than than either "apologism" or "pathetic"? I try to answer many of your statements, no matter how pathetic they may seem to me, elequontly and with thought. I'd appreciate if you could extend that same courtesy to me.

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 07:29 PM

Xen

February 8th, 2004, 07:31 PM

--Well, don't be. "Racism" is called with such ubiquity that nobody pays proper attention when there is a legitimate problem. You just did it above with the parenthetical remark (and they have a full deck).---

You should know that this is part of re-directing your misdirection.Anyone that wants to be honest about this issue knows that with the long history of the United States racism is something that blacks have experienced at the hands of whites 9.9 times out of 10 .Any "racism" that blacks feel in return towards 100's of years of continued mistreatment couldnt possibly morally or pratically have the same weight as white racism- which has ALWAYS been unwarranted and unjustified-except to people who like to pretend that it does.

Racism is unwarranted regardless of who distributes it. There is no reason for it. It doesnt matter if its whites doing it to blacks or visa versa. Its wrong. And playing tit for tat does not help matters any.

Damn and I didnt want to get involved in this crap.

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 07:32 PM

---Could you please do me the courtesy of answering with something better than than either "apologism" or "pathetic"? ----

Sorry but I cherish every momnet of my life. So when I chose to confront the same tired recycled apologism with 1 word instead of the multi-word response I used previoulsy about the same thing its about me saving my moments. But it also FULLY exprsses what I feel about the same tired recycled apologism I'm responding to. Hope that helps :D

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 07:34 PM

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 07:35 PM

Sorry but I cherish every momnet of my life. So when I chose to confront the same tired recycled apologism with 1 word instead of the multi-word response I used previoulsy about the same thing its about me saving my moments. But it also FULLY exprsses what I feel about the same tired recycled apologism I'm responding to. Hope that helps :D

Wow, I can't believe it.

You're actually a bigger asshole than I previously thought.

Xen

February 8th, 2004, 07:37 PM

--Racism is unwarranted regardless of who distributes it. There is no reason for it. It doesnt matter if its whites doing it to blacks or visa versa. Its wrong. And playing tit for tat does not help matters any.

Damn and I didnt want to get involved in this crap.---

Great .Then dont imply that racism is a tit for tat situation in the US.It never has been and it still isnt.

It is this that you said

Any "racism" that blacks feel in return towards 100's of years of continued mistreatment couldnt possibly morally or pratically have the same weight as white racism- which has ALWAYS been unwarranted and unjustified-except to people who like to pretend that it does.

That just screams tit for tat. Perhaps its just the way you worded, or maybe I read it wrong. Neither of us are perfect.

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 07:40 PM

---Wow, I can't believe it.

You're actually a bigger asshole than I previously thought.---

And here ladies-well gentlemen we have the famous 1st sign that someone feels they can no longer debate the ISSUE at hand -they get personal .I'd respond in kind but I'm sure you know what I think about you and your friends here. :p

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 07:42 PM

"Great .Then dont imply that racism is a tit for tat situation in the US.It never has been and it still isnt."

--That just screams tit for tat. Perhaps its just the way you worded, or maybe I read it wrong. Neither of us are perfect.---

Granted.But this post wasnt directed at you but towards the individual I was responding to when you responded to me. Sorry for the confusion.

Abdul Hadi Pasha

February 8th, 2004, 07:46 PM

--Well, don't be. "Racism" is called with such ubiquity that nobody pays proper attention when there is a legitimate problem. You just did it above with the parenthetical remark (and they have a full deck).---

You should know that this is part of re-directing your misdirection.Anyone that wants to be honest about this issue knows that with the long history of the United States racism is something that blacks have experienced at the hands of whites 9.9 times out of 10 .Any "racism" that blacks feel in return towards 100's of years of continued mistreatment couldnt possibly morally or pratically have the same weight as white racism- which has ALWAYS been unwarranted and unjustified-except to people who like to pretend that it does.

That blacks have and do undeniably suffer from racism does not change the fact that not everything blacks suffer is due to racism. Because you have a chip on your shoulder so gigantic that you can't see over it, you missed my point entirely. I sincerely hope that someday you can get over your hatefulness and develop a constructive approach to race relations instead of magnifying the problem by alienating everyone around you.

Your statemetnt that black racism isn't as bad as white racism is unlikely to win over any hearts and minds, but good luck with that strategy.

tom

February 8th, 2004, 07:49 PM

I think he means the quantity of white racism is greater, not that the quality is worse.

Abdul Hadi Pasha

February 8th, 2004, 07:50 PM

Doesn't the second part invalidate the statistical comment of the first part ? Or is it the opposite...heck, I'm out of practice !

I'm seen this one before, and you only get it by saying that Mexicans/Hispanics aren't white. I have a very good friend who falls into this racial category and he certainly doesn't view himself as black

Grey Wolf

You may have got the impression from Michael that Black and White are the only racial categories, since the only relevant issue is that blacks were brought here as slaves and thus our entire culture is permanently corrupt, evil, and racist in ways that we are not even aware, even the way in which we sleep, because I'm sure that even our subconscious minds are dreaming up ways to keep the black man down, but the reality is that there are other ethnic minorities of significant size. This includes Hispanics and Asians, among others.

Abdul Hadi Pasha

February 8th, 2004, 07:52 PM

I think he means the quantity of white racism is greater, not that the quality is worse.

He said can't MORALLY have the same weight. That is qualitative.

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 07:53 PM

And here ladies-well gentlemen we have the famous 1st sign that someone feels they can no longer debate the ISSUE at hand -they get personal .I'd respond in kind but I'm sure you know what I think about you and your friends here. :p

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

First of all, I'm not sure I have too many friends here. I think I'm a little too right-wing for most people here.

Second of all, I would LOVE to hear what you have to say about me.

Third, I can't believe that you have the AUDACITY to say that I started going personal after you have been attacking ME from day one. Take for example, how many times have you called me an "apologist" or "denialist" or one of the other terms that you have used to covertly call me a racist?

I've tried to debate. I've tried to reason. I've asked you to respond with thoughtful rebukes of your own to my statements. And how do you respond? WITH ONE WORD ANSWERS. When I ask you to respond with full statements, you just degrade my views rather than express thoughtful statements backed by statistics, historical information, and plain common sense. And you dare to say that I CAN NO LONGER DEBATE???

Give me a fucking break.

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 07:54 PM

--I sincerely hope that someday you can get over your hatefulness and develop a constructive approach to race relations instead of magnifying the problem by alienating everyone around you.

Your statemetnt that black racism isn't as bad as white racism is unlikely to win over any hearts and minds, but good luck with that strategy---

Actually I already have a constrcutive approach towards race relations with the white people that I have in my personal life who happen to be honest about the racial situation and see it they way that I do.Saying that black racism hasnt had the same presence and desturctive effect in the US as white racism isnt saying that its not bad.But pretending that racism has been a tit for tat situation in the US and that both groups have the same degree of moral responsibilty for it is the main barrier towards racial healing in the US. I hope that someday you and others here will get over that mindset no matter how much it might threaten your worldview.

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 07:58 PM

--I can't believe that you have the AUDACITY to say that I started going personal after you have been attacking ME from day one. Take for example, how many times have you called me an "apologist" or "denialist" or one of the other terms that you have used to covertly call me a racist---

There is a difference between attacking someones opinions or what they write about issues and attacking them personally. When I used the words apologist or denialist I'm talking about whats being written.The only thing I know about you is based on what you write. So what did you mean when you said asshole? I'm secure enough in my opinions to have them assaulted as left-wing,radical,racist,hateful or crazy without resorting to personal name-calling.

Ps when I said friends I also didnt mean it literally I meant others who think like you about this issue -of which there are several here.

Grey Wolf

February 8th, 2004, 07:59 PM

You may have got the impression from Michael that Black and White are the only racial categories, since the only relevant issue is that blacks were brought here as slaves and thus our entire culture is permanently corrupt, evil, and racist in ways that we are not even aware, even the way in which we sleep, because I'm sure that even our subconscious minds are dreaming up ways to keep the black man down, but the reality is that there are other ethnic minorities of significant size. This includes Hispanics and Asians, among others.

Sorry, I thought they were the only ones being argued about here, that was all.

I do wonder quite what the point of worrying about being out-numbered by a variety of races is, even more than the point of worrying at being out-numbered by a single one ? Not that I am saying that you have those fears/worries, I am just wondering why it SHOULD be seen as a valid fear/worry by people and whether the fact that it IS seen is what is really being debated here once all the extraneous elements are stripped away

Grey Wolf

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 08:03 PM

There is a difference between attacking someones opinions or what they write about issues and attacking them personally. When I used the words apologist or denialist I'm talking about whats being written.

You still haven't answered: I've tried to debate. I've tried to reason. I've asked you to respond with thoughtful rebukes of your own to my statements. And how do you respond? WITH ONE WORD ANSWERS. When I ask you to respond with full statements, you just degrade my views rather than express thoughtful statements backed by statistics, historical information, and plain common sense. And you dare to say that I CAN NO LONGER DEBATE???

So what did you mean when you siad asshole?

When I SAID ('A' before 'I') the word asshole, I meant it as it is defined in the dictionary: A person with thoroughly contemptible, detestable thoughts and feelings. From what I can tell of you through your writing, it is an apt description.

Since, you edited your statement, I will edit mine as well.

P.S. There is no difference between a person and their thoughts, as you have suggested. Thoughts are what make a person. So, by attacking a person's thoughts and ideas, you are, thus, attacking the person themselves.

Xen

February 8th, 2004, 08:05 PM

Sorry, I thought they were the only ones being argued about here, that was all.

I do wonder quite what the point of worrying about being out-numbered by a variety of races is, even more than the point of worrying at being out-numbered by a single one ? Not that I am saying that you have those fears/worries, I am just wondering why it SHOULD be seen as a valid fear/worry by people and whether the fact that it IS seen is what is really being debated here once all the extraneous elements are stripped away

Grey Wolf

I cant answer that. I personally dont care. As long as Im allowed to live my life without interference, the same with my family. This came up on another board I chat with when it was known that hispanics are now the largest minority in America. My opinion is if they leave me alone, Ill be happy. However I will say they better learn to speak English, Im not going to learn another language just so I can live in the country I was born in. I dont think that is asking to much.

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 08:08 PM

--When I SAID ('A' before 'I') the word asshole, I meant it as it is defined in the dictionary: A person with thoroughly contemptible, detestable thoughts and feelings. From what I can tell of you through your writing, it is an apt description---

Wonderful.And based on YOUR writings(which I feel exactly the same about) I feel its apologist.Like I said I dont need to get personal and use the word asshole to describe them but somethings in life can go without saying. :D

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 08:10 PM

Michael, you know, for a change, why don't you respond with something that shows that you have just an ounce of brain-power? (i.e. something other than "apologist," "denialist," or "racist").

First, start by answering this: I've tried to debate. I've tried to reason. I've asked you to respond with thoughtful rebukes of your own to my statements. And how do you respond? WITH ONE WORD ANSWERS. When I ask you to respond with full statements, you just degrade my views rather than express thoughtful statements backed by statistics, historical information, and plain common sense. And you dare to say that I CAN NO LONGER DEBATE???

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 08:16 PM

--First, start by answering this: I've tried to debate. I've tried to reason. I've asked you to respond with thoughtful rebukes of your own to my statements. And how do you respond? WITH ONE WORD ANSWERS. When I ask you to respond with full statements, you just degrade my views rather than express thoughtful statements backed by statistics, historical information, and plain common sense. And you dare to say that I CAN NO LONGER DEBATE???---

Heres a suggestion-why dont you use some brain power and go back and read all the other posts I made on this thread BEFORE I responded with the 1 word answers and see if they compute. I said that when people respond to debates on issues with personal insults-like you did-its a sign that they cant or wont debate the ISSUE itself anymore-I still do.

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 08:19 PM

Well, I can see you've given up. Don't even want to bother with any semblance of an actual debate, do you? Well, fine, I guess it's your perogative to give up whenever you want.

You see, it doesn't matter whether I read what you originally said. You still haven't answered my responses to those statements. Thus, going over your original statements, which I have rebuked, would be utterly pointless.

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 08:28 PM

--Well, I can see you've given up. Don't even want to bother with any semblance of an actual debate, do you? Well, fine, I guess it's your perogative to give up whenever you want.

You see, it doesn't matter whether I read what you originally said. You still have answered my responses to those statements. Thus, going over your original statements, which I have rebuked, would be utterly pointless.---

Once again- you said that I only responed to what you were saying here with 1 word answers.Anyone who has been following this thread or cares to look back will see thats not the case except for 2 responses. With the 2 responses which I rebuked with the 1 word responses would have been equally utterly pointless to respond to again because they were the SAME things I responed to before.So whats your point with this?

Beck Reilly

February 8th, 2004, 08:33 PM

With the 2 responses which I rebuked with the 1 word responses would have been equally utterly pointless to respond to again because they were the SAME things I responed to before.So whats your point with this?

Actually, they were quite different than my previous statements, in that the information backing my own statements was much more solid and the reasoning more apparent. But, apparently, like I have said, you have given up and, thus, this latest in a long series of arguments does not matter.

Grey Wolf

February 8th, 2004, 08:36 PM

Um...why don't you two just hit yourselves, pretend the other guy did it and either move on the debate or drop it, its becoming a bit, er, unfocused

Grey Wolf

Michael E Johnson

February 8th, 2004, 08:37 PM

--But, apparently, like I have said, you have given up and, thus, this latest in a long series of arguments does not matter.---

You are right I'm giving up debating about this here because I dont see what the point is-but I'll never give up debating about racial issues in the US-especially if they are being misrepresented- as exhibted by ALL my posts on this and other threads here and on the old board.
-

Wombat

February 8th, 2004, 08:40 PM

Actually, they were quite different than my previous statements, in that the information backing my own statements was much more solid and the reasoning more apparent. But, apparently, like I have said, you have given up and, thus, this latest in a long series of arguments does not matter.

I can't let this one go. How is attacking LBJ for the reasons you did more reasoned? I think deer hunting is not much of a sport and so who cares if he used a machine gun? Also so what if he gave an interview whilst receiving a colonoscopy - did that affect what he said? If they held the mic to his butt it w