By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
February 5, 2004
Way back on November 15, 2003, a bit over two months ago, we were hearing from media commentators, that Howard Dean was pretty much “unbeatable.” Larry Sabato, one of the “experts” Fox News uses to explain what we dumbbells out here in the hinterlands are apparently too dumb to understand, observed: “I think Dean … doesn't have to worry about Kerry as much as he has to see worry about Dick Gephardt” as a competitor for the Democrat nomination.
Brit Hume asked, as they were dismissing John Kerry as a possible presidential candidate for the Democrats: “What went wrong?” Sabato responded, “The first thing that went wrong was he voted for the Iraq War. And then instead of really sticking with his vote, he's tried to qualify it and explain it away. And frankly, he's alienated both sides.”
As it turns out, in the primaries and caucuses in five states on Tuesday Kerry pretty much swept the contentious Howard Dean under the carpet. Dick Gebhardt had already given up after his fourth place defeat in the Iowa caucus. John Kerry received 38.12% of the total Democrat vote. Howard Dean came in fourth with a mere 11.64% of the vote. John Edwards was second with 23.17% and Wesley Clark was third with 14.85% of the vote.
Exit polls, we are told, indicate that the main thing on the minds of Democrat voters is “Who can beat George W. Bush?” There is, after all, a strong movement, first articulated in the July-August 2003 issue of International Socialist Review, which has been picked up by the Democrats to elect “Anybody but Bush.” Billionaire George Soros recently told the media, "America, under Bush, is a danger to the world, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."
So, all the billions of words we were hearing from Democrats about campaign finance reform a short time ago notwithstanding, the Democrats have a money tree for 2004. On the other side we have George W. Bush, Republican, who, according the media, is in danger of losing a good portion of his right wing support, because he is not really an ardent rightwinger. By September 10, 2001, George W. Bush had appointed five well-qualified “minority” persons to be part of his cabinet or inner circle of advisors: Colin Powell, Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor, and Rod Paige, Secretary of Education (all blacks), Norman Mineta, a Democrat and a Japanese-American as Secretary of Transportation and Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor who is a Chinese immigrant. On top of that, he’s appointed several minority judges, such as Michael Estrada, only to have them viciously blocked by the so-called “liberal” Democrats. Did that win for him the support of the majority of the minority voters? No. People who have lived their entire lifetime whining about being mistreated don’t really want to hear that they can make it on their own.
What does all this really mean? I believe it means that we in America are in the midst of a tidal wave of political change. Political labels have become meaningless, especially “conservative” and “liberal.” What was once “liberal,” i.e. racial equality, is now a conservative value, while Democrat “liberals” furiously work for continued racial segregation via affirmative action.
The need for a change in thinking was pointed out a couple of years ago by UCLA economics professor Walter Williams who wrote an article published September 10, 2001 in Capitalism Magazine entitled “Election 2000’s Message: Don’t Subsidize Political Stupidity. Understandably, because of its unfortunate timing, it didn’t receive much attention.
However, it was an article that should be required reading in 2004 for every candidate and voter in the country but especially every Republican voter. Williams advocated the startling notion that political stupidity should be sort of - ignored. Williams wrote:
“The Republican Party must face the fact that to get large numbers of black voters requires compromise on principles. The GOP would have to support racial quotas, support welfare hand-outs, condone continued destruction of black academic excellence by supporting the public education establishment, and preach racial victimization and pity. In other words, in order for Republicans to capture the black vote they'd have to support what Gallup polls show that most Americans are generally against.“Ward Connerly, writing in a Dec. 18 (2000) National Review article titled ‘The GOP's Black Problem,’ says, ‘The black vote will remain captive to the Democratic Party as long as black people see themselves as victims and view the Democrats as the party of 'civil rights.’ Connerly's prescription for the Republican Party comes from an old country song that advises card players that you have to ‘know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.’ Connerly's advise to the GOP is to fold 'em -- not because the GOP shouldn't want black support, but a different strategy is required: one of benign neglect.”
Both Williams and Connerly, who are black, are telling us that the solution to the political stupidity of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is …benign neglect.
On the other side of the political divide, we are now being told that, unless Bush kowtows to the political stupidity of the extreme right wing in the Republican Party, he will lose the 2004 election. As I have pointed out in a number of articles in the past couple of years, quite often the extreme right and the extreme left saying exactly the same thing. Both seem to hate bush, the war in Iraq, globalism, Bush’s efforts to solve the illegal immigration problem, even tax reform, etc.
What Walter Williams and Ward Connerly have said about blacks can also apply to the mostly white anti-Bush Republicans. To obtain the vote of some of the rightwingers I hear from, George W. Bush also would have to compromise his principles. He isn’t into stirring up hate and anger. He wants to bring people together. The problems of 2004 cannot be solved with the divisive and contentious policies of the 1960s that both the extreme right and the extreme left are using. I believe in the basic good sense of the American people – when, and if, they can get the facts of the issues facing them. Sometimes the first step to getting good information is to stop believing everything someone says on a news show.
To comment: Mary@bannerofliberty.com