Mitch McConnell’s Kentucky-fried opponents

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

For those who missed Thursday’s post, I have exhausted my supply of fails for Congress over the debt, so don’t expect any for some time. Instead, this week’s fail was brought to you by left-wing super PAC Progress Kentucky, whose sole raison d’être is to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Many of you may not be aware that McConnell is married to Elaine Chao, who was Secretary of Labor under then-President George W. Bush, as well as the first Asian-American woman to head a Cabinet department. Now tell me which fact in that sentence sticks out in your mind when you read this Progress KY tweet:

This woman has the ear of @McConnellPress – she’s his #wife. May explain why your job moved to #China!

Isn’t #job a more effective hashtag than #wife if you’re trying to drive up viewership? But I digress. The tweet – posted on Valentine’s Day, ironically enough – has since been deleted, and Progress KY has issued an apology to Chao. Of course, that was after 12 days of backlash, and a particularly terrible response to accusations of race-baiting from executive director Shawn Reilly:

Progress Kentucky strongly denies that the organization has engaged in any such thing. [McConnell campaign manager Jesse] Benton’s statements are an attempt to divert attention from the fact that Mitch McConnell has engaged in the selling of the American middle class overseas for decades.

You know what else diverted attention from that fact, Shawn? The damn tweet. When I first read about it, I was immediately reminded of this, which in turn reminded me of this. But never this, which may or may not have been what Progress KY was really going for. They made it rather difficult to tell.

It amazes me how often people, especially in politics, don’t reflect on how the public at large will react to something they say or do. If there’s a possibility that they’ll construe something as race-baiting, it’s best not to say it. Intent is important, but ultimately you are responsible for not overshadowing your own intent and giving anyone a chance to run with what something sounds like. Not to mention making people who don’t normally like McConnell, present company included, feel a bit sorry for him.

Also: Is Benton’s name familiar? He was the political director for former Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) 2012 presidential campaign. What the hell is he doing with McConnell, a Republican who is arguably “establishment?” Besides the money, I mean.

Why I never self-declare in applications

Assuming Abigail Fisher is as qualified for university admission as she says she is – and there is no reason to believe she isn’t – there may be only two reasons for her to be denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin: some sort of clerical error, or the fact that she is white. Thankfully, this is going to the U.S. Supreme Court so the question of race-based admission can be settled once and for all. Having graduated from two racially diverse schools myself, I say no.

Fisher is suing the university for its admissions policies, which, after accepting applicants from the top 10 percent of high school students, considers “test scores, community service, leadership qualities and work experience” along with race of students in the next 20 percent. She says she was more qualified than many of the other students in this bracket and was denied admission for being white. The school, “‘will vigorously seek a decision’ reaffirming the educational benefits of diversity and its narrowly tailored admissions policy.”

I will not deny that there are educational benefits to diversity; I took many discussion-based courses in which minority students offered unique perspectives on issues with race as a factor. And as Brenda Shum of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law points out, there isn’t much of a constitutionality argument. That would only apply if the admissions standards were codified by a state or federal government.

But that does not make it ethical to include race as a factor in admissions. Going purely on the basis of merit certainly does not guarantee racial homogeneity. To suggest otherwise carries the implication that minority students are automatically disadvantaged because of their race and need all the help they can get, despite the needs of other students. This, in itself, is racism.

By continuing to insist on diversity above all else, supporters of UT’s admissions policies are essentially admitting that given the choice between a well-qualified white student and a less-qualified minority one, they would choose the latter. This is equally unfair to the less-qualified student who gets thrown into an educational setting for which they are less prepared. Most importantly, at some point after these policies begin, resentment between students comes with it. This is no way to create a harmonious atmosphere.

My point is this: Let in the people who deserve to be let in for their individual skills, not one little check box on an application form. (For the record, I was given the opportunity to self-declare on my applications and I never took them. But the University of Winnipeg isn’t exactly prestigious. Come on, you know it isn’t.)

Be it resolved that racism sucks

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL). I haven’t had occasion to mention Gov. Rick Perry’s (R-TX) frequent use of a hunting camp known as “Niggerhead,” and his attempt to paint over the name, literally, several years ago. I will only say that if he knew the camp’s name would come back to haunt him politically, he could have lobbied to change it himself. I and the House of Representatives can leave it at that. Jackson cannot.

In Thursday’s session, Jackson offered a House resolution that would have had them send down an official condemnation of Perry’s use of the camp for his guests, who on more than one occasion were lawmakers themselves. He asked that the resolution be considered under privilege, which would expedite the voting process to two days. Because Perry is not a House member and a rule stipulates that resolutions under privilege affect the “rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity or the integrity of it’s proceedings,” it was squashed.

As you can imagine, Jackson was unimpressed: “I personally would be offended that the Congress of the United States wouldn’t understand the gravity of this resolution.” In fact, the resolution has no gravity at all. It’s merely a reminder that racially insensitive language is bad. You don’t need a congressional resolution to tell you that. And if you do, chances are nobody takes you seriously in the first place. (Yeah, I’m looking at you, Hank Williams Jr.)

It would be one thing if Jackson took to his website or social media accounts, or some political event, to express his disgust with Perry. But there is no reason for the House to concern itself with a governor’s mistakes unless it actually affects the rights or well-being of the people in his or her state. If I were a representative and I decided to condemn everyone who ever used the word “kike,” we’d never get anywhere. Save the obvious, overstated points about discrimination for pensive editorial writers in college newspapers who think only they had that idea. Believe me, there’s at least one of them for every publication.

Perhaps the House ought to add a new rule: “No member shall waste the chamber’s resources on their own opinion, regardless of whether or not the chamber shares it, and shall not thereafter accuse them of disregard for racism.” If I had a buck for every time one of those pensive editorial writers did that, I could run for president myself.

You say centrist like it’s a bad thing

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by “moral philosopher” Cornel West. (I didn’t know they were still hiring for those.) He has gained a considerable amount of media attention for a couple of accusations of betrayal leveled at President Obama. It’s important to note before we continue that West and Obama do not appear to have had a formal professional relationship.

The first of West’s two accusations is personal: Despite calling Obama biweekly on the campaign trail to pray for him, he could not get a ticket to his inauguration. The second is ideological: He disapproves of Obama’s Clintonian “opportunism,” which he deems “centrist” and “neoliberal,” both pejorative terms in the mind of a hardcore winger like himself. But don’t draw too much from this. Not even centrists think Obama is a centrist at heart.

But West’s biggest problem with Obama is the crowd he surrounds himself with: “upper middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart, very savvy and very effective in getting what they want.” This all adds up to “fear for free black men,” meaning men like him. What sort of freedom is he talking about here? Freedom from “whiteness?” I’d hoped we’d gotten past using such terms in reference to ideological division within races.

West certainly has legitimate criticisms of Obama, as do those from all standpoints. But he writes in the tone of someone who couldn’t get a seat at the cool kids’ table and is exacting his revenge in the form of an angry journal entry. It would help him immensely to cease referring to Obama as a “brother”; at no point in history have all members of any race marched in lockstep, nor should they be expected to do so now. Obama’s task is certainly not to improve the lot of any one race, including his own.

Furthermore, he needs to accept that no matter what a presidential candidate runs on, they will be confronted with political and legal realities not easily seen by someone who hasn’t sat in the Oval Office. This is not a betrayal of principle or people; this is doing a job. I agree that his economic team should not come from Wall Street as much, but nor should they have as divisive and unproductive a perspective as West.

Sign up early for Spanish lessons

Having developed a disgust for identity politics soon after entering university (always a bastion of it), I have never been one to believe in voting blocs based on sex, race, religion or anything of the sort. Yet still they come every now and again, often by virtue of its members simply being there and happening to think along the same lines. That’s what may continue to happen in the U.S. as the Hispanic population grows, through birth and immigration.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that the Hispanic population in America grew an unbelievable 43 times faster than the “non-Hispanic white population” over the past decade. They now represent 23% of citizens under 18, and they are on track to make up over a third of the population by 2050. So far, two-thirds of them have tended to vote Democratic. No doubt some have accused Republicans of wanting to crack down on illegal immigration for this reason.

The above link wonders what this could mean for party politics. The writer, Brad Knickerbocker (snort) (titter), came to just one conclusion: Democrats are safe as long as immigration remains a hot issue, but if Republicans start to look better in terms of the economy, they might have to worry. Anyone could have called that. So far, how many of us have really thought about what a force Hispanics could be in American discourse? Because it could be huge.

I predict that at some point in the near future – I’d give it five years to a decade – a political infrastructure for Hispanics will begin to take shape. It will consist of some combination of the following: activist and lobby groups, political action committees, think tanks, legal defense funds, media outlets and funders. There will be Hispanic versions of Rev. Jesse Jackson, Richard Mellon Scaife/George Soros and later President Obama. Their job will be to fix immigration, maximize work opportunities and alter perceptions.

Keep in mind that such a development took place for blacks and women. As with those, the Hispanic infrastructure won’t be all-encompassing; there will be ideological fractures and simple refusals to engage in race-based politics. But it will come close. I expect it to grow to the level of the Tea Party, from whom candidates will fight for endorsements in order to best suit the political climate of the time.

So who will be the leader of the pack? Former Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM)? Labor Secretary Hilda Solis? Someone new we haven’t heard of yet? Stay tuned. We’ll learn.

Barbour learns to be “civil”

It is speculated that Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) might be considering a run for the GOP nomination in 2012. His defeat would be less certain than that of former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) or former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), but he still wouldn’t be as competitive as others whose names have come up in the discussion; his unfortunate slip-up over the influence of the White Citizens’ Council in his hometown of Yazoo City might dog him.

According to Barbour’s personal recollections, the WCC was instrumental in peacefully integrating blacks into the daily life of Yazoo City, where civil rights matters tended to be addressed more peacefully, compared to the rest of the South. Others have pointed out the consensus among historians that the WCC promoted segregation and was white-supremacist in nature. But because they rejected the KKK, Barbour says, they weren’t “that bad.”

Well, duh. In the thankfully limited sphere of white supremacists in the U.S., no one was as bad as the KKK. To go by their Wikipedia page, one gets the impression that up until the push for desegregation started up, the WCC was a group of ordinary Joes who went about their business and didn’t like black people. And even then, they weren’t burning nearly as many crosses, if any at all. But Barbour could have saved himself simply by following up his comments about the WCC by denouncing racial supremacy movements as a whole, just for clarity.

From a PR perspective, what is the best way to respond when you are a public figure who has been caught saying something that relates to an identifiable group and could be construed as ignorant? Apologize, explain your business and – if possible – win them back over. Two out of three ain’t bad for Barbour, who suggested establishing a museum of civil rights in Jackson after a gaffe over his understanding of the subject.

I’m giving him extra credit for this because of what an improvement this would be over Winnipeg’s idea for a Canadian Museum for Human Rights. At this moment, we’re arguing over which human rights violations in history deserve permanent exhibits and which ones don’t, and on what basis. A museum devoted to the American civil rights movement is much more specific, although suggestions for a GLBT exhibit might create some controversy.

Of course, a museum for this purpose would not be new – the National Civil Rights Museum is already located in Memphis. But with Mississippi’s name being associated with civil rights firestorms for so many decades, a smaller one focused on the state’s struggles would be appropriate.

Well, if you have to ask . . .

According to The Economist, the mission of the Congressional Black Caucus is “to promote the public welfare through legislation designed to meet the needs of millions of neglected citizens.” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) considers this statement “liberal” to the point that Reps. Tim Scott (R-SC) and Allen West (R-FL) would refuse to join the Caucus – if they ask to join. I take it they won’t be getting an invitation, which all but two black Republican members of Congress have yet to get or request.

Why was “Black caucus says it will allow Republicans” a headline in 2010? Is it because, except for the aforementioned two, those who have been in Congress have never wanted an invitation? There is certainly no outright ban; the Caucus has never been explicitly Democratic. But the idea of a de facto “No Republicans allowed” sign on the door may be so pervasive that they haven’t bothered to ask in recent years. Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK), who was in office until 2003, “declined to join.”

As for Scott and West, the former says he’s “leaning against” attempting to join, and the latter says he wants to provide a “new perspective.” God knows they need it. The presence of even one Republican in the caucus would send the message that Democrats cannot count on the black vote forever, and they need to start learning why, especially when conservatism is in vogue.

West specifically wants to address “failing liberal social welfare policies that have caused the demise of the black community.” If the mission statement were taken literally, this line would certainly put him at odds with it. But a Republican perspective combined with a genuine concern for social welfare should be welcomed with open arms.

On the other hand, Scott may have the better idea of the two: “My theory is that the world that I’ve always lived in has been a world that’s been integrated. We can work it out together . . . to no one’s exclusion.” He doesn’t appear to favor “othering,” a term I often use for identity politics in practice. If the Caucus wants him, they will have to prove their own necessity to him first, and I doubt they’ll have an easy go of it.

If future black congressional Republicans share Scott’s view, they may one day see fit to join the Caucus simply so they can bring it down from the inside. This is the only argument I can muster for Scott’s membership. Staying out of the Caucus will certainly boost his popularity among black voters who don’t like being “othered” by politicians. But the first idea would be awesome, in a pinky-to-mouth sort of way.

Steve Blair is pond scum

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

Thanks to my friend Jason for supplying this week’s fail – and it’s a doozy of a fail – which was brought to you by Principal Jeff Lane of Miller Valley Elementary School in Prescott, Arizona; Prescott City Councilman Steve Blair; and anyone who has ever shouted a racial epithet in the direction of a child, specifically in this town.

Here’s the chronology: Miller Valley students and a group of artists begin painting a mural on the school wall. The most prominent child on the mural is Hispanic, based on a photograph of a real student. People driving by complain about seeing “niggers” and “spics” on it. Some of them call the school to continue the complaints. Blair starts a campaign on local talk radio to remove the mural on the grounds that the school started a racial debate. And now Lane is bending to political pressure, while throwing out all manner of excuses, and ordering the artists to lighten the kids’ faces.

Seriously. Lighten their faces. He says it’s because “we” had a problem with the shading; one of the artists says “their” justification, whoever “they” are, was the students should be looking as if they’re “coming into the light.” At least someone would be enlightened!

Let’s begin the ranting: Lane? No matter how many property taxes have gone into your paycheck, you do not work for a bunch of idiots in cars (see below). You work for the students. They are receiving exposure to these attitudes far too early in life. Prescott might be overwhelmingly white, but do you want the other 8% of its residents to see it as a hotbed of racist ignorance?

Blair? You are a city councillor. If you want to stay a city councillor, you will a) shut your ass up about race, which you made into an issue, and b) leave everyone’s children alone unless the child commits a felony. If the largest face on the mural is black – which it’s not, king of fact-checking – remind us why we should care.

Everyone in Prescott who hurled epithets within the earshot of these kids? How do you not see what a problem that is? Do you relish the thought of them going home to ask their parents what a spic is? Whatever justification you can muster for that, it won’t work.

Phoenix might be lovely this time of year, but I am never setting foot in a state with this many examples of racial vitriol.

Debbie Schlussel is off her nut (but was she ever on?)

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel. I used to think Ann Coulter was the least sane member of the blond female Republican brigade (the most sane would probably be Monica Crowley), but she is absolutely an angel of mercy compared to this one. It all started when Schlussel linked Miss Michigan/USA Rima Fakih, a Lebanese-American, to Hezbollah. It all went downhill from there.

On her blog, she complains that CNN’s Middle East editor, Octavia Nasr, referred to her as a “neoconservative” on her blog. This accurately describes the political views of many a pundit over the past decade; in Schlussel’s warped view of the world, “neocon” is basically equivalent to “kike” or any other anti-Semitic slur. She also targets Pat Buchanan for this, but you can’t call him a neocon because his conservatism is more traditional than that of, say, Sean Hannity or any of his clones.

Anyway, Schlussel proceeds to refer to Nasr as a kalbeh (“bitch”). Debbie Schlussel, living by her own rules since 1969. She would probably accuse me of being an anti-Semite since I questioned her accusations of this on someone else’s part. But I’m a Jew, too.

In this earlier entry, she uses the following as proof that Fakih is a Hezbollah supporter: She’s a Shiite Muslim! Who was born in Lebanon! In an area known as a Hezbollah stronghold! And some of her relatives – apparently – work for them! This begs the question of why Fakih isn’t living in Lebanon right now and denouncing the Miss USA pageant as immodest and un-Islamic, or whatever Saudi clerics would say about it.

I could go on and on about Schlussel’s work if I had a strong enough stomach for it, but this says it all. As much as I often cast various commentators as offensive, out of touch, and wasters of our time and their own, at least they don’t have the writing style of a 15-year-old National Review wannabe with an ego to match. Anyone who complains that much about their own criticism, where it exists and doesn’t exist, should not be in this business.

Of course, try telling that to Schlussel’s followers, who thrive on her provocation and use her words to justify racist sentiments. But you can never reason with them, can you?

Broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by the administration at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, CA. When commentators like myself give a fail to an educational institution, it’s typically for one of three reasons: a poor record on campus crime, an event generally regarded as inappropriate for students of a certain age, or an atmosphere of insufferable political correctness. This one was found behind Door #3.

Wednesday was Cinco de Mayo, and some Hispanic students celebrated by adorning themselves with the colors of the Mexican flag. That same day, four other students wore American flag T-shirts to school. The second group was sent home by Principal Nick Boden and Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez, who “said we were starting a fight, we were fuel to the fire,” according to one of them. They feared that these boys would be a safety risk.

So here’s what must have been going through the admins’ head at the time: “Ah, what a great Cinco de Mayo. Wait, what the hell are those? American flag shirts? On a Mexican holiday? They must be expressing their xenophobia and racism! Oh, dear, what if there’s a racial beatdown? We must stop them before they kill a Hispanic student!” Ridiculous? Of course.

In solidarity with the boys who were sent home and in opposition to a monumentally useless punishment, “many more” students wore American flag T-shirts the next day. In response, 200 Hispanic students walked out of class at Live Oak and nearby Ann Sobrato High School to march through the town, “demonstrating their support for Mexico.” One of them said: “They can be a patriot on some other day. Not that specific day.” Ridiculous? More so.

The only real win in this situation comes from the students who rallied in favor of racial unity on campus. For all intents and purposes, there was no reason for there to be anything but racial unity. The principal later conceded that he may have gone half-cocked, but the May 6 protesters have yet to do the same. They were absolutely wrong to say that they were being disrespected; they made that up and ran with it for the sake of making a point. Anyone can dress like a patriot whenever they feel like it.