Oh, yes . . . that’s another thing . . .
In The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted, Mike Lofgren – a lifelong Republican who was a Capitol Hill staffer for 28 years – writes:
Translation: My post is my cite!
Very compelling.
If you think Pat Buchanan represents a similar view to neo-conservatives like Bill Kristol or …well, I am not sure David Brooks can really be described as any kind of conservative… then you need to stop spewing vitriol and do some research yourself. Also, I am happy to debate you on “racist pseudo science”. From previous discussions I am aware that you have not done much research on the topic and cannot back up your position.
There is an excellent article by Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine on the media and popular culture aspect I discussed above.
Which is a ridiculous definition because, as David Friedman notes, that means understanding evolution and its potential implications maybe racist.
People will notice that Chen has deliberately ignored how he embarrassed himself by claiming Pat Buchanan could never get to be a talking head on CNN when in fact he was a talking head on not one but two CNN shows, The Capital Gang, and Crossfire.
One will also note that he foolishly insisted that conservative columnists couldn’t be found at The New York Times or The Washington Post she in fact, as I pointed out, they’ve had a number of conservative columnists.
Sadly, Chen doesn’t do the research he should.
My apologies. I’m not from the US, but as far as I’m aware Buchanan got axed from MSNBC last year because in his latest book he suggested that the demographic changes in the US were not a good thing. In other words, a concern that presumably a significant portion of those on the right hold about immigration was deemed illegitimate.
Whatever the merits of that view ( the majority view in the 47 countries Pew Global looked at is that immigration should be further restricted), it’s an example of people having that viewpoint marginalized.
Similarly, Lou Dobbs is another who appears to have been pushed out for having views on immigration that accord with the majority, but in terms of the cultural/media elite are seen as unnacceptable. In other words, that view just gets marginalized as illegitimate.
You being called a racist comes from your racism.
Hey, take it up with Dictionary.com.
Friedman writes:
It is most certainly not “assumed without discussion”; The Bell Curve was published in 1994. The Dream and the Nightmare in 1993, and The g Factor in 1998.
When someone proves that inherent genetic differences explain differing individual and cultural outcomes for different races, the definition can be modified.
Having a given RW political POV “marginalized as illegitimate” != disenfranchisement of the RW.
Fine. now would like to address the contents of my rant?
You seem to be under the impression that this is a self correcting system 
It’s not a question of evidence, it’s a question of sacred values. It’s similar to religion in that respect.
But it does in some respects, I’m not sure that is a controversial observation.
Above it was pointed out that Buchanan had been on CNN shows. If you look at the time period it seems to date from 1982 to 1999. That’s consistent with the gradual pattern of disenfranchisement. I’ve just touched on some areas above:
- academia (social sciences)
- popular culture - Chait’s NY Mag article above
- talking heads/columnists (Buchanan on CNN in the 1990’s, now axed from MSNBC, Lou Dobbs pushed out)
Then there is the obvious one of demographic change and a permanent Democrat majority. Apparently using 1992 demographics Romney would have won the election. So in a very real sense the right wing have been disenfranchised through demographic change reducing their political power.
Wrong again Chen.
Buchanan wasn’t pushed out by CNN, he left to devote himself to the Reform Party. As for his tenure at MSNBC, it wasn’t because he said nasty things about Brown people in his 2012 book “Suicide of a Superpower”. He’s been making racist comments about non-white immigrants for decades including when running for President when he openly whined about “Zulus” coming to America and how right outside the house he grew up in “those people” were “playing bongo drums”.
Buchanan was kicked out of MSNBC because he whined about the US taking in too many Jews leading to “the death of Christian America” and on the anniversary of the Holocaust he on the air started vociferously arguing that A)Britain shouldn’t have attacked Germany and B)the world would have been better if Hitler had won the war.
Again, I recommend doing more research next time.
Beyond that, why are you so certain that people who share your racist beliefs are somehow persona non grata in the modern media.
I assume you’ve heard of The Washington Post which has had as one of their leading columnists the bigoted Richard Cohen who insists that business owners in Washington DC shouldn’t allow young black males in to their stores because they are “probably criminals.”
The thing is Cohen and Buchanan can write very well and they’re the exception.
Almost without a single exception, scientific racists are horrible writers unable to put together an argument that doesn’t completely fall apart with the slightest scratching and spend most of their time regurgitating discredited bullshit put forth by others.
If scientific racists and bigots were able to produce more writers like Cohen and Buchanan then Cohen and Buchanan then we’d have more of them at The Washington Post, NY Times etc.
However, they are, with few exceptions, terrible writers with even worse imaginations.
Perhaps there is a genetic reason for this, but I doubt it since there were plenty of brilliant racists in the past. It’s just that nowadays most racists tend to be mentally and psychologically stunted who feel that way due to their own fears of being inferior mentally, physically, and/or (of course) sexually to minorities.
Unless you can prove that those values are actually wrong, then it doesn’t matter how vigorously people cling to them.
No, sir. “Losing” != “Disenfranchisement”. Racial/ethnic minorities in America often have been disenfranchised by being denied the vote; they never have been disenfranchised by their numerical-minority status as such, even if the latter means they often ended up voting (if at all) for the losing side.
If the question is the existence or nonexistence of statistically significant genetically-determined psychological differences between “races” or population-groups, then it is a question of evidence to the nay side and a question of sacred values to the yea side. We’ve been through this before many times and it’s always your side that is religiositous on the point.
The reports I’ve seen conclude that it was the chapter about the negative implications of ethnic changes in the US that was the final straw for MSNBC. Here’s another explanation I’ve seen:
The idea that Richard Cohen is a conservative writer is absurd - (exhibit A, exhibit B, Exhibit C). If this writer can be mistaken for a Conservative, then it emphasisis just how much the right wing has been disenfranchised!
That hasn’t been my experience. In my experience multiple lines of evidence are presented to suggest a partial genetic cause for group differences. The response is generally cries of heretic (or in the case of the researchers themselves, getting punched in the face, bomb threats at Berkeley, pressure from politicians to sack them, attempts to break their tenure etc - that is the type of response that is to be expected when sacred values are threatened).
Nah, many psychologists even investigate how the fallacies you push don’t amount to much, they do however demonstrate how off base your ideas are. The most religious like bias is observed and researched on the side that tries to continue to assign mystical abilities to genes.
Probably more to do with the results of various twin & adoption studies. Or more recent studies like the ones by Davies and Visscher. Height and intelligence for instance are heritable quantitative traits.
Nope, not the point. The fallacy is not in the inheritance, but in the idea that this applies to differences in intelligence among races, as usual the attempt is to tell others that most researchers agree that the heretical traits are affected by differences in “race”. But that ***is ***the fallacy, most researchers do not follow or agree with that, hence the reality that even psychologists today do wonder what is wrong with the ones that still have a beef with science not supporting anymore the cherished beliefs of the ones that liked the old race status.
Of course, if you are just concentrating in the inheritance of intelligence this is really irrelevant to the thread, only if you are referring to the significant loss of power the white race had in the USA is that your reply would make sense; but suffice to say, very few right wingers now would like to keep that specific old power structure. In fact most right wingers are united in condemning the ones that appear that they did not get the memo that regarding race, it is necessary to get over the old fears of disenfranchisement.
Or in other words, the loss of power you are fearing here is something that only the **fringe **of the right wing is following nowadays.