Does it matter that a racial eugenicist is running for Congress in Tennessee?

In the 8th Congressional District of Tennessee, James Hart is the Republican running against incumbent Democrat John Tanner. Hart is a racist – not an everybody-just-knows-it racist like Jesse Helms, but an open racist, the kind who really believes nonwhites are genetically mentally inferior to whites, and says so. His campaign is based on “eugenics.” One of the sections of his platform is labelled “Stop Welfare and Immigration Replace it with a War on Poverty Genes”. (He’s also against “usury,” by which, near as I can tell, he means charging any interest at all on loans.)

The Tennessee Republican Party has made very clear it wants nothing to do with Hart. Until this year he was not even a registered Republican. He’s on the ballot only because Tanner is considered unbeatable and no other Pub bothered to run against him. One might say Hart’s candidacy reflects on racism in the Republican Party, but only in the sense that it would seem even more preposterous for him to run as a Democrat. (Of course, the Dems have their Lyndon LaRouche.) And of course, he’s not going to win. No way is he going to win.

That said, I wonder: What does this say about our society, 30 years after the civil rights movement seemed to have won all its battles for good and all? There was a time, remember, when not many but most white Americans, even Northerners, had substantially the same views Hart has of racial differences. How many are there today, I wonder, who think that way but just don’t talk about it publicly, because you can catch so much shit for publicly espousing racism without using any code-words or euphemisms?

Here’s a link to Hart’s website. Mods, please do not come down on me for linking to a “hate site.” This is, like it or not, the official campaign site of a candidate for Congress.

http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/

It means that all that civilized people can really do is to ridicule these neanderthals whenever and wherever they pop up so they can’t put on some sort of veil of significance, and wait for them all to die.

It’s harsh. But it’s true. You can’t turn someone like this from the dark side. They’re completely impervious to reason.

And it should be noted that this is also the proper strategy for dealing with the homophobic cavemen, except that we have a little longer to wait on that one.

I would quibble that the civil rights movement never “won all its battles for good and all,” but I don’t think that would be the salient point, here, anyway.

What this says about our society is that we are still sufficiently tolerant of expression–of all sorts–that the occasional loon get still get his voice heard.

If Hart wins any sizeable portion of the vote* or if Hart was getting support from the Republican Party or if Hart was not an anomaly, I would say that it was a pretty severe condemnation of our society. However, the fact that one kook can wangle a nomination (when the party he used had abandoned any effort at that seat) says only that the cries of those who claim that “PC” has destroyed free expression in this country are, obviously, in error.

  • Even a good portion of the vote might not be an utter condemnation of that district if his opponent took a stand on an issue seriously at odds with the electorate or if, depsite his website, Hart was not really pushing his racism in his radio, TV, newspaper, and billboard ads.

I’m sure it varies by region. Of course it would be impossible to get any kind of accurate survey. Around here, I know of…(ahem)…several. There is actually a part of town known as ‘Klan Kountry.’ At least there’s no sign advertising it anymore. It disappeared just a few years ago. Ironically enough, that part of town is the absolute trashiest part. Much worse than the traditionally black part of town.

Is there any evidence that Mr. Hart is receiving any support from the national party? I know that in Texas, I could have run for Congress as a Democrat in the 10th District by merely renting an apartment a few blocks East of my house and paying the filing fee. I would have been the only candidate in the Dem primary and made it on the Nov. ballot as a Dem. Not that the party would support me, unless I had both a realistic chance of winning and compatible politics (neither apply, unless going by pre-1980’s Texas Democratic Party standards- a lot more “conservative”).

No. The local Republicans tried to get him to lose the primary with a write-in campaign. Also, the Tennessee Repuplican Party passed a resolution telling people to oppose Hart.

Re ScoobyTX’s question - why didn’t the party go, find someone who lives in the district and say “Chris, you’ve been a loyal Republican for years. Will you please, please, please put your name on the ballot? We’ll pay the filing fee; we’ll handle all the secretarial work. You don’t have to do anything, say anything, as it’s a given that you’re not going win. All we need is a name so that James Hart is not associated with us.”
$35 bucks (or whatever it is in Tenessee, it can’t be that much, though, can it?) and a mailing to the party faithful saying “Please, please don’t vote for Hart in the primary” and there’s no issue. That’s pretty easy - why didn’t they do it?

As I understand it, nobody knew who Hart was. All the Republican Party thought was some idiot had decided to waste his time to run. It was only only after the time period the party could have opposed Hart being on the primary ballot or get someone else on the primary ballot that Hart began giving speeches and the Republican Party was not too happy about what he said, but it was too late.

I don’t think so. In fact, the local Republicans tried to keep him off the ballot. From http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=stepdad&static=271175:

From http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_53820.asp:

He doesn’t have a big campaign budget. He’s campaigning by going door-to-door (in white neighborhoods only – and in rural Tennessee the races live pretty much apart) and handing out literature, which has roughly the same content as his website. It’s described here – http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups382.html:

I don’t know what really happened, here, but it is not unusual that in districts where the incumbent is a shoo-in that the opposing party never invests the energy to put up an opponent, at all. In those situations, it is really not that rare for some loon to walk into the place of registry at 4:15 on the last day to file and put themselves in nomination for the candidacy. At that point, the party is left with a write-in campaign for the primary election as their only hope.

They tried, but there wasn’t enough lead-time after they realized what was happening. Read the accounts excerpted in my above post.

I really doubt that. I imagination that it has stirred up more indignation than anything else.

This was the district where I grew up. When the towns have a few hundred people, you don’t live so much “apart” as in clumps. Even before integration, there were friendships. People of color allowed me into their homes in the 1950’s and that’s as far back as I can remember visiting anyone.

That district has been held by a Democrat for as long as I can remember. (I don’t know what Davy Crockett’s political affiliation was, but he was once the Congressman.)

There are always some who will serously support ideas such as his. But he will get more votes than that just because some people will mistakenly vote for straight ticket without knowing much about him. So don’t let the number of votes he gets mislead you.

The integration of schools has gone well in most of that district, especially in the rural areas, and there is a more unified nature to the communities.

What does it say about our society? I’m just pleased that the Republicans aren’t selling out to have his vote in Congress. It’s also a reminder that Southerners aren’t all Republicans. Thus, stereotypes aren’t very useful.

American society is built upon a foundation of useful lies and myths. They are derived from a liberal vision of an ideal world, not the world as it is.

:confused: How does that relate to this discussion? Are you suggesting that Hart’s racial theories are actually correct, and the idea of racial equality is one of those “useful lies”? If not, what are you saying?

Y’know, the part about how the local media just plain ignored the local Republican Party’s problem until the very end, combined with the apparent willingness at the start to just let the election happen uncontested at all, is just astonishing to me. Heck even when I lived in Baltimore the Republicans bothered to put up someone as a figurehead candidate.

It reflects open democracy and opportunity and what have you, but cases such as these are an argument in favor of the sort of system we have here, where to run in the primary you need petitions adding up to a determined percent of the total votes in the prior election to the office.

Does anyone know how this Hart guy is running in the polls? We In Illinois have our own nutcase running for the US Senate, Alan Keyes. I am proud to say that he isn’t cracking 20% in the pre-election polling against Obama.

I’ve seen no actual poll figures, but all the press coverage seems to agree that Hart has very little support and no chance of winning.

I’m still waiting for mks57 to come back and explicate that seemingly irrelevant (but possibly relevant in a very ugly way) post. :dubious:

There’s a small but growing movement of academic racialists who do research, and publish in books and academic journals in support of racialist eugenics. People like Michael Levin, Kevin McDonald, Phillippe Rushton, Jared Taylor, Dinesh D’Souza, Richard Lynne, etc. Their books are in most big college libraries, and their work gets published in respectable academic journals. Murray’s and Herrenstein’s The Bell Curve was the first big media breakout to use some of this research as the basis for its arguments.

The racialists have a lot of private sympathizers with their beliefs, people who are afraid to go public for fear of career damage or public disapproval. As long as the US remains a relatively stable, prosperous place, the racialists will only get the open support of a disgruntled minority. Their proposals - ending the Civil Rights Act, renewing the bans on interracial marriage, returning to Jim Crow, would be disasterous to US business and political interests, so no mainstream political organization will associate with them.

People with these beliefs could come to power in the event of a large scale economic or political upheaval. As we’ve seen in the former Yugoslavia, it’s easy to revert to tribalism in times of crisis.

I wouldn’t call that ironic at all. Resentment is commonly associated with racism. White people from the “trashiest” (by which I assume you mean poorest and most rundown) parts of town would be the ones I would most expect to denigrate anyone who had the temerity to do better than them. If they resented more accomplished white people, they’d have to take a look at their own lives and see what might be lacking in themselves. Hating people based on race is much easier.

As I used to say about my skinhead nephew-in-law (or would that be “step-nephew”?), it was sad that the one thing in his life that he was proud of was something that he had no control over whatsoever: his skin color.