City Journal Summer 2014

Current Issue:

Summer 2014
Table of Contents
Subscribe
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Harry Stein
Romney and Race « Back to Story

View Comments (25)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.


 
Showing 25 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
If the Black community is so solidly pro Obama to the tune 95% or better, than why worry about them? Politically,its as if they don't exist.
Proceed with the campaign and direct it to the white and hispanic voters, the ones who work and pay taxes and marry the mothers of their children and want to live in a safe neighborhood and whose retirement plans don't include taking in their abandoned grandchildren to keep that welfare check coming. Let the blacks wallow in their own poverty and social dysfunction.
Who cares?
Romney was in the Mormon Church when it openly discriminated against blacks. The Book he claims represents his god openly states dark skin is a mark for wrong doing. His book states native americans are descended from Jews, and that other christian faiths are abominations.
When going through the temple, he vowed on pain of death to put the Mormon Church above state, and everything else.

Thats just for starters. I suggest you do a little more research before writing any more drivel.

"This is also why such candor would work. Most Americans have a keen sense of fairness—as well as reality—and they know full well that racial discrimination is no longer as rampant as many liberals insist. They believe in equal opportunity and a level playing field, and that no one should be either penalized or privileged by race or ethnicity."
absolute BS. Yes, they are fair and they call it when they see it.
there were golliwogs at the GOP rallys, but barely any black people. the last Obama rally was mixed race. Watch what people do, not what cronies say.
A real question is , will the DNC stop its hate toward Mormonism, the rich, and whites in general except those who support Obama? When will the MSM stop dividing the American voter so Obama's divisive views will be spread to confuse and spread hate toward those who have success in their lives via economic production?? Of course, if the plantation minorities ever ever were to rethink their welfare, non-productive, gimme agenda and would take the advice of people who really do have good solid families, business acumen, and take on what used to be called Yankee ingenuity and common sense, blacks and people of color would flood to the Pubs because they produce opportunities which the liberals prevent them from even viewing as an alternative life style.
Regardling blacks and the LDS Church: that 1978 bit is by now very old history. The LDS Church is one of the fastest-growning churches in Africa now, particularly in Ghana and Nigeria.
funkg;

The people who despise African-Americans the most are other African-Americans. Just look at the astronomical black on black homicide rate.
Racial tensions are indeed rising, but I don't think it has much to do with Obama's statements. I think it has more to do with the fact that people are in a bad mood due to the bad economy. Also, the growing number of unprovoked bloody attacks by mobs of black youth against white people is increasing anti-black feelings, and the deceptive early reports on the Treyvon Martin case is rabble-rousing among blacks.
B. Samuel Davis, who will stop the continuing holocaust that Democrats have created in the black community?

The other part of the problem is that the Conservatives don't have an answer either.
Sadly another CJ article hostile to African Americans who must be the most despised 'minority'in the US next to Muslims,
I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this article, Mr. Stein. But it reaks of the same kind of understanding of reality that Mr. Romney lives in - the one where having two cadillacs for his wife - is a normal everyday occurrence. Clearly, Mr. Stein, you have never suffered racial prejudice whether verbal or physical, or you wouldn't be purporting this idea that racial unrest has been allowed to proliferate by the President and worse, that he is capitalizing on it. I find your nonchalant dampening of a real problem in America to be offensive and criminal. Racism is a real problem, not simply a topic of journalism, sir. Perhaps, you may step in the shoes of the many who have suffered real racist actions. Maybe it wouldn't be so easy to write a quaint article about racism and politics.
If Stein truly believes that "ill feeling between the races is more prevalent than at any time in recent memory," then he has an extremely short memory!
This is a fantastic article as I found it to have many truths. It is a shame that our President and people in his administration has decided to use race as a way to win. It appears to me that it is all about winning and not about this great country - the country seems to be secondary. I honestly think we are more divided today then we were in 2008.I would like to think that people go to the polls to vote for the best person for the position and not the color his skin.
Marvelous self-parody of "color-blind" neo-conism--congratulations!
B. Samuel Davis May 08, 2012 at 10:44 AM
What baloney! Race "the great unresolved issue"?

Hardly - it is only unresolved because Democrats use it to beat Republicans over the head over and over again - and no matter how the Republicans respond Democrats will somehow twist it into racism - a no win situation for Republicans. As if there was any way to prove a negative - it isn't possible to prove a person is free of racism - it can't be done. But that isn't because someone is racist - it's that logically there's no way to PROVE negatives. You can't prove that a Catholic priest isn't a pedophile either - proving negatives is a logical impossibility.

And Democrats know it.

But, then again, actions do speak louder than words, right?

Right! When it comes to racism the Democratic Party has a long long LONG history of utterly shameful acts - both now and in the past.

To cite a few examples:

Which party participated in and supported slavery?
Democratic.

Which party supported, identified with and drafted the Jim Crow laws?
Democratic.

Which party did the members of the KKK belong to - the real KKK not the few attention seekers today, belong to? Democratic.

Which party did those doing the lynchings belong to?
All were good Democrats.

What was the party of the segregationist South, that Democratic media had no problem supporting right up to the civil rights era - that's right the media of Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow et als?
Democratic.

Which party supported and supports the importation of millions of immigrants as Democratic voters even though those voters took jobs traditionally done by blacks - jobs which in a tight labor market could have been a stepping stone to better employment?
Democratic.

And which party adopted aid policies that led directly to the destruction of the black family - despite ample warnings of the consequences in studies authored by among others, Daniel Moynihan?
Democratic.

Which party knew but didn't care that the destruction of the family would lead directly to insane levels of crime and dismal educational achievement?
Democratic, naturally.

Which party's media has done whatever it can to hide the terrible statistics on black crime and dismal educational achievements all in an effort not make Democratic leaders look bad, through adoption of a policy known as "political correctness" a policy under which Democrats get a pass for a century and a half of misery, murder and destruction.
Democratic.

Which party puts criminals in leadership positions like Kenneth Gibson, Sharp James and Marion Barry?
Democratic.

Which party gets close to 100% of the black vote despite an unparalleled record of failure, a history of virulent racism and no hope for the future?
Democratic.

Which party brazenly uses the worst sort of race baiting and hustling whenever their dismal record of achievement in the black community is even remotely questioned or they need to stir up people to vote?
Democratic of course - take notice that it happens during every election cycle.

Which party would not change a thing in the black community, not on education, not on crime, not on aid, and especially not on using aid programs to funnel money to corrupt black leaders in the poverty industry like Obama, since to do so would or could result in massive defections as these people finally - FINALLY - realize just who is their worst enemy?
Democratic.

And last, which party, when there comes a reckoning, and by God there had better be one soon or the black community will face another century and a half of misery and ruin, will finally face a truth commission, and whose leaders will be tossed in prison?

Yes, the Democratic party, an organization that is like an unending plague on the black community, and which is the author of a modern day American holocaust.

You want candor on race? Then talk about what's REALLY going on, what REALLY happened and is happening - that's real straight talking. Look at my other comments on this issue - I've seen the consequences of Democratic policies first hand - on children. And yes, when it comes to children just who do you see in those flash mob videos? You want real change then someone has to have the you know what's to face the inevitable charges of racism when they point out what's really going on - and do so despite years of conditioning by racist Democratic media, which has - yes -conditioned us like Pavlov's dog to react in a certain fearful way when it comes to issues of race, all to protect corrupt Democratic leaders and policies.

Because someone has to say it - someone has to stop the continuing holocaust that Democrats have created in the black community.
Bravo! Brilliant and courageous.
David Miller-Engel

Government has gone as far as it could go to encourage progress in the Black community. With all the affirmative action policies, diversity outreach, preferential hiring and contracting, and admission quotas, Black folks ought to be superstars. The problem lies elsewhere - in the low academic achievement, the disinterest in the importance of education, the appalling percentage of fatherless children, and the disquieting rates of black-on-black crime that send so many young men to prison.

The effects of racism are overblown. Black immigrants, after all, are very successful. They shun the previously mentioned behavior. It is self-defeating.

Enough BS apologaie. This is 2012. Jim Crow and racism are the excuses for modern dysfunction, not the causes. The American Black community has to face up - to its attitudes, its defects, and its self-destructive habits and stop shunting to the blame to white people for its failures. Nothing else is going to work.
Stephen Rittenberg May 08, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Superb article, dispelling the fog of Political Correctness. Romney seems too cautious to follow the excellent advice.
David Livingston May 08, 2012 at 8:59 AM
It's a knee-jerk reflex for liberals to call anyone who resists falling in line with their extremist version of what constitutes racism racist,

For example, I who served two years as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Liberia, am known to yet be friends with Liberians whom I first met in 1962 & whose younger, blue-eyed, son married a Colored girl with my blessing have been called racist by a liberal.

Typical of liberal extremism is the insistence on using the word black to describe Negro folk, but that's a generational issue. Not long ago I used the term black in a conversation with a Liberian friend, but he corrected me & insisted I use the term Colored to desacribe him; he not much younger than I who am 72.

My Liberian friend has credentials that in my oipinion qualify him to make that determination: he has a Ph.d from UCLA, speaks no less than 5 languages, including English, Arabic & French; was a cabinet level officer in a Liberian government some decades ago.
David Miller-Engel May 08, 2012 at 8:03 AM
here are a few points and history lesson..food for your thought....
1. We have not made gradual progress towards racial equality over the past "couple hundred years." What we have had are momentary bursts towards racial liberalism followed by quick, and often violent efforts by the majority of whites to restrict and rollback those advances. Sure, the founding fathers outlawed the slave trade in 1809. Folks proclaimed it would be the death knell of slavery. In the meantime, between 1809 and 1863 American slavery got significantly harsher than it had been if you can believe it. Do a google search on the Antebellum Domestic Slave Trade and the "Black Codes." With the supply of new Africans all but cut off, plantation societies began active attempts to breed slaves, supplying children from the mid-atlantic to plantations in the south. Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act which made even slaves who had escaped into free territory subject to capture and return. Punishments for running away tended to involve dismemberment or torture that would encourage others not to risk.

2. What about emancipation you might say. Indeed, emancipation was a great expansion in American civil rights. And what do you know. It was accompanied by the biggest expansion in Federal power and authority the country had ever known. Federal troops had to occupy the south in order to keep local governments from denying emancipated black people their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. The government expanded to provide educational institutions and assistance in securing land ownership to the people who had worked land for nothing for generations. Remember how that turned out? I think you should check out Eric Foner's book "America's Unfinished Revolution" the most comprehensive analysis of Reconstruction. For those who don't have time, the short answer is that white southerners who saw their racial privilege threatened by black citizenship rallied around the cause that the federal "tyrants" were meddling in individual state affairs, that the expansion of the federal government constituted a "negro rule" and that unless they rolled back black citizenship that disaster would strike and the nation would dissolve into chaos (sound familiar?). All of this lead to the founding of the KKK and they swept to power in the 1876 election after engaging in massive violence and intimidation against black people who tried to vote, particularly in Florida (yup!) Louisiana and South Carolina. Because of these acts of intimidation the election results from those contests were contested and in the Compromise of 1876, Democrats agreed to concede the Presidency if Republicans agreed to pull out troops and relinquish control of state governments back to southern whites. They did. Within a decade every southern state had passed some version of the Jim Crow code and within two decades black men were being lynched across the south for doing such impertinent things as:
-Registering to vote
-Opening a business
-Buying land
-Failing to comply with the rules of public and political deferrence.
So yes, emancipation happened and, briefly, black folks experienced broad gains. But it was snapped back and a new system of oppression was constructed. Of course, a minority of African Americans defied the odds moved north, found a way to survive and thrive. But this happened not because America offered them any great opportunities. It occurred because there are always exceptional people. For some reasons conservatives love to point to Oprah and say "she did it, therefore racism is over." or Obama is black...Ummm. no.

3. How were things for black people in the North during all of this? Not to much better, please check out Jim Loewen's "Sundown Towns" or Thomas Sugrue's "Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North."

4. You have the 1960s Civil Rights struggles. So a full century after the failed Reconstruction experiment, the federal government tries once again to guarantee full citizenship rights to black people. And they do this only after about 20 straight years of *constant* agitation, organizing by African Americans and cruel and violent reprisals from southern whites. Huzzah! They pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they pass the 1965 Voting Rights Act. They expand the size of the federal government via the War on Poverty to try and, once again, help correct systemic and entrenched consequences of oppression. And what do you know. White conservatives are back too, this time with a new version of the old game in the face of Barry Goldwater. Conservatives claimed that the deconstruction of Jim Crow, affirmative action programs meant to increase black representation in education and employment was "reverse racism" (remember Negro rule?) that it was expanding the scope of the federal government beyond the bounds of the constitution, that it was leading to tyrannical higher taxes (sound familiar?). And while whites could no longer rely upon the tactics of the KKK or the specter of "negro rule" we did see the Nixon Administration and every subsequent Republican Administration get on the "Law and Order" bandwagon. Between 1970 and 1980 nearly every state had passed a new set of laws that targeted communities of color. Mandatory minimum laws for small amounts of illegal drugs, the inequitable sentencing of crack-cocaine vs. cocaine being the best example. As a result, there are currently more African American men behind bars in the United States now than there were black people enslaved at the dawn of the Civil War. You need to read Michelle Alexander's book "The New Jim Crow."

And hey, once again, the 1960s did lead to major advancement for a number of black people. And many of those advancement came from public sector employment, teaching, government beauracracy etc. Isn't it convenient that those are two forms of work that are among the most demonized in this country...hmmmm. So yes, this country has done much to expand and grow the category of citzenship, but what I'm very mindful of is the way history repeats. I'm very concerned when people develop a powerful anxiety about "the size of government" and the problem of "federal tyranny." I've heard that rhetoric before and it concerns me. As a nation we don't have a great history of sustaining investments in black communities. In fact, we have a history of constantly divesting from black communities. And having a black President doesn't have anything to do with it.

and you write "No matter what..." what you need to do is get a new perspective...
Obama was never other than he is, which is a black racist. He ran as a black victim because that's the acceptable line for "real" black culture in America. He attended a black liberation theology church for most of his adult life because they make a religion of black racism. They're about as "Christian" as the KKK. He hates the people who cared for him, like grandma, because they were white and he embraced his black worthless daddy who abandoned him, just because of his skin. He has inserted his bigoted ignorant self into every hot situation to stir up the pot more. It works with blacks because they were fed this crapola like pablum growing up and they are still sucking it down. It's their truth, not THE truth. It's not white racism holding black people down. It is the internalization of this poisonous message they learn at their mother's knee. I never realized how ugly and angry blacks as a group were until they put this loser in our house. Intelligent blacks are for the most part conservative but you never hear that because they supposedly don't exist. They do. But the majority could care less about this country. They don't care about America. And they are perfectly fine with this fraud putting their children into life slavery to the state from birth on, simply because his skin color is the same as theirs. How stupid can you get? My black friends are smart enough to see through this con man. They despise him as much as I do. Hmmmmmm. Does that make them racist?
Stein writes: " ill feeling between the races is more prevalent than at any time in recent memory—a clear result of his style and the substance of his governance."
Any one who has read and reread Ralph Ellison's INVISIBLE MAN, a masterpiece quite at the level of say Leaves of Grass, Whitman, and Huckleberry Finn, will recall the narrator's slave grandfather's dying advice: "Yes'em! Yes'em to death and destruction!" Naive narrator is shocked, but he learns how and why he was given that parting advice. If anyone resembles the conman and shapeshifter of the last part, it is Obama, Rinehart himself, predicted 60 years ago by a genius. I pegged BHO in 2008 as the very incarnation of Hawthorne's FEATHERTOP, from an 1852 campaign satire. Google it those who are curious.
AmericaBeautiful May 07, 2012 at 11:09 PM
Don't presume Romney will win. RON PAUL is the true candidate of the people. Check out the size of his crowds.
Obama won in 2008 as a calm, intelligent, post-racial figure, not as the Angry Black Man. He and his team have forgotten that winning strategy. Running as the Black Candidate (i.e., as yet another race-hustling Revrum) is a prescription for defeat. He already has the black vote; He needs the white vote, which is nine times bigger. Identity politics is a two-way street, and Obama has begun the process of creating white identity politics. Is this racist? Yes of course. But if your census form defines who you are, then white people will vote for the white party. You can call it the KKK party, but you can also call the Democratic Party the ZANU-PF. Welcome to Zimbabwe.
EDIT: So, how is this different?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdjoHA5ocwU
What kind of liberal media outcry would ensue if Romney announced a campaign group called,
"Whitey's for Mitt?"

So, Hohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdjoHA5ocwUw is this different?
This is one of the strangest articles I have ever read on City Journal. If we are to believe Harry Stein, the only reason that the country hasn't bridged its historic racial sins is because of three or four comments that the President has said on race, plus a silly comment by his AG. Keeping along the theme of the article and not touching upon real, quantifiable issues that used to be the hallmark of this journal (such as the huge impact of the financial downturn on black wealth and race relations), wouldn't it have been a good idea to have some type of small, throw-away line at least acknowledging that this President has been subjected to some pretty rough racial smears (from whites), many of which are grounded in stereotypes of African villagers? I mean, even just a throw-away line that could be dismissed, Harry? Or are you just not aware of them?