Is Bush a Racist? Bush Shows His True Colors

[freeandbrave]

Of most things that I think about President Bush (none of them very appealing), I can honestly say that I never quite pegged him as a racist.

That was, until I read this very compelling article arguing that Bush, like most Republicans are racists.

As actions reveal a person's true colors, you can see how Bush's hateful history paints him in the eyes of reality.

Now Bush is using Social Security (arguably the most successful social program ever to grace this great nation) to both undermine the African American community and to destroy Social Security...all while convincing African-Americans to vote for him.

Read and judge for yourself. Take special note of the challenge at the end!

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001113.php#1113

[Kerrytravelers]

1. I didn't know about the ties to Confederate institutions.

I always thought he was more classist, caring nothing about the poor (who in large part are minorities, but also encompasses whites as well.)

[eallen]

2. I didn't find that article convincing.

On all those items it noted, it's not too hard to imagine Bush's political motivation rather than any racist motivation. That's not to say those political motivations are good. I think critics lose something when they stretch like this to make a case on such a point.

[freeandbrave]

6. So what your implying is...

...that using racism as a tool to your benefit is not racism in and of itself?

I don't buy that for one minute. Bush clearly sees 'minorities' as nothing more than a tool to be taken advantage of for his personal gain. If they are harmed in the process, then fuck em.

Nope. Such efforts and philosophy can only be held in the mind of someone who thinks less of minorities than of 'their own kind'.

Bush is a racist. He just isn't the type that blasts racial epithets at the top of his lungs.

He's sort of the "Nouveau bigot-sophisticate".

[eallen]

17. The GOP is turning that kind of rhetoric against Democrats.

"Bush clearly sees 'minorities' as nothing more than a tool to be taken advantage of for his personal gain."

Which is exactly what the GOP says about Democrats who look to the black vote, and campaign in black churches, while pushing gay marriage, which most black churches oppose. This kind of rhetoric is just spin. Even when there is a grain of truth in it, the problem is that instead of revealing that truth, it covers what is there in convenient interpretation.

And the GOP has gotten very, very good at spin. It has coopted every piece of rhetorical gloss the left ever used, and recast it for its own purpose.

Now, we can either try to outspin the GOP. Or we can focus on facts and unspinning the GOP. It is an important fact that social security is not in a crisis, as Bush claims. It is a crucial fact that using race as a actuarial determinant of social security benefits would create a government bureaucracy to determine and mark everyone's race! But it is spin to say that Bush has floated this idea because he is a racist, rather than for political purpose. Cast the facts. Let those who hear do their own inferring.

:)

[Touchdown]

36. A little aside to back up your spin example.

Democrats never "pushed" for gay marriage. That in itself is GOP spin. All 9 candidates in 2003 are on record as being against marriage equality. John Kerry never changed his stance. It was pushed by the Religious Right and co-opted by the GOP as a wedge issue to feed raw meat to the faithful. Then they turned it around and acted like it was always the left and this fictional "radical homosexual activist army" that was behind it. The fact of the matter is, that whenever the subject of gay rights comes up, it's ALWAYS the Religious Right bringing it up, driving the debate and pushing the argument through. Gay people aren't large enough in numbers to push any agenda through without major supporters, and the Dem Party doesn't have the balls to back up gay people against the GOP hate machine. They're forced to compromise, time and again.

Sorry to derail and expound on your words. Your main point is good and well taken, just that little tidbit I wanted to address, because some even here, still think us "pushing for gay marriage" is a fact, and the main cause why we lost the election, which means even the savviest among us get duped by the Republican frames from time to time. It can't be said enough. :D

[ObliqueFracture]

12. agree.

[freeandbrave]

15. Have we been desensitized to Republican racism...

...to the point that racist behavior is dismissed as 'just being conservative' for political gain.

George Lakoff points out that the conservative world view includes the belief (however socially suppressed) that whites are superior to non-whites ("Don't Think of an Elephant"). Thus, if you follow the 'strict father' conservative world view, you are by default, a racist.

The manner in which you act on that belief may determine whether or not you are labeled a 'racist'. And that 'benefit of the doubt' seems to be afforded the Republicans, and Bush in particular, only because of some sort of 'desensitization' that has occurred as a result of years of anti-minority activities among those who otherwise act in a racially conciliatory manner.

[sw04ca]

24. Indeed.

Lots of the items point to Bush and his minders being a less-than-stellar human being, but that's hardly a surprise. But a racist? I think that word is tossed around too freely these days.

The neo-confederate thing is hardly a surprise anyways, nor is it a black mark. After all, we don't think of FDR as a terrible racist, despite the fact that the Southern Democratic machine of the 30s and 40s supported him.

As for the inclusion of state's rights ideologues on the SC, how does that hurt the black community? The Civil War is long over, and if a judge who happens to believe that the Union exceeded it's legal powers when they banned slavery makes it to the Supreme Court, does it hurt the current black community? The Ammendments are passed, and not even the Supreme Court can reverse them. At this point, it's such an arcane issue that it hardly matters. After all, I think Roe v. Wade was bad jurisprudence, but pratically speaking I support the heck out of abortion.

The Bob Jones stuff isn't significant. Both parties drum up support from fringe loons. I don't find the judge to be significant either, because I'm more of a believer in nominating based on their jurisprudence than based on their extracurricular activities.

As for the social security debate, I don't think it's enormously important so long as immigration keeps up. Health care reform is far more important, in my opinion.

[freeandbrave]

26. You're Missing the point!!

* Doesn't matter if the 'neo-confederate' thing is surprising
* It IS a black mark
* This is not the 30s and 40s
* The confederate flag is a symbol of the confederacy... the lone instance of outright treason in our history and a symbol of our slavery past. Just get rid of it.
* It always matters
* And each party should be held accountable for their pandering to such 'fringe loons'.

Frankly, you make an excellent apologist for the right if you weren't missing the point so badly.

THE POINT is that, the overall pattern of activity is what defines a person...and thus Bush.

His overall patern of behavior points in a single direction. Racism --- or racial intolerance -- or racial 'who gives a fuck about them' -- whatever. It shows us who Bush really is regardless of whether or not you are willing to use the term racist.

[brainshrub]

3. Bush is no racist.

Evil wanker, yes. Racist, no. Classist, definitely.

Bush is a wanna-be dictator with a God complex. If he can squeeze votes out of a specific group, he'll do it. If using racist techniques will get a few votes to him, he'll do it... but that shows that he is an opportunistic bastard, not a racist.

Bush could care less what color your skin is. Racism is one of the few negative qualities I would not peg onto Bush.

[leesa]

7. Maybe...but he sure doesn't have any problems murdering brown people in

the ME who have done nothing to us. Germany was harboring nearly as many AlQaeda as we were...why didn't we bomb them?

I agree though. He's a psychopath and is an equal opportunity hater for the most part. He probably doesn't even hate, it's just pure power manipulation.

[freeandbrave]

9. What is a racist? What's your definition?

Maybe this is semantics that we're bickering about here.

It seems like Bush's folksy demeanor has at least earned him a reprieve from his "racist activities".

if it smells like a lemon and tastes like a lemon, then what the Hell is it?

It's a lemon.

I would be interested in just exactly what some of you define as 'racism'.

Does Bush have to wear a white hood and burn crosses?

[beanball]

22. Racist

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks its a duck.Nuf said.

[freeandbrave]

34. Agreed

I still have yet to hear from anyone as to why they think the pattern of behavior is inconsistent with racism.

[kwassa]

40. The pattern is not much of a pattern, Bush is not a racist

Mr. Bush appointed the first black Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, two of the most important politically appointed jobs in any administration. Of course, he also gave foreign policy power elsewhere, to the Vice-President and Defense Department, which undercuts those appointments to a degree. He is seeking the appointment of the first Hispanic Attorney General.

He, for all his other massive flaws, is not a racist, which makes him starkly different than the Republican Presidents that preceeded him. His policies may not benefit most African-Americans, from the viewpoint of that community, but this is more a product of his conservative philosophy than racism.

That article was weak as water, mostly spin with little substance.

[freeandbrave]

41. Puhhhh lease...

...talk about tokenism. This is the definition. With Condi 'fuck affirmative action' Rice at his side, The neocons were hoping to get the overlook from people who love to cite Condi and Colin as 'proof' of Bush's love for diversity.

What a joke.

The definition of tokenism is selecting the 'token' who stands against the values and needs of the demographic that the 'token' represents.

Bush is a racist and if you can't see any pattern then perhaps you should open your eyes.

[kwassa]

43. Definition of tokenism is incorrect

to·ken·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tk-nzm)
n.

1. The policy of making only a perfunctory effort or symbolic gesture toward the accomplishment of a goal, such as racial integration.
2. The practice of hiring or appointing a token number of people from underrepresented groups in order to deflect criticism or comply with affirmative action rules: “Tokenism does not change stereotypes of social systems but works to preserve them, since it dulls the revolutionary impulse” (Mary Daly).

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

you said:
"The definition of tokenism is selecting the 'token' who stands against the values and needs of the demographic that the 'token' represents."

Nope. Sorry, that is not what tokenism means, that is your rather creative definition of tokenism.

Interesting definition, but not true.

Aside from the obvious: the roughly 35 million African-Americans have different ideas from each other on what their values and needs are, and if you knew them slightly better, you might discover how conflicted many of them are on the subject of Rice and Powell.

[robbedvoter]

29. Noooo! He believes people with "skin different than ours" can self-govern

And, some of his best friends are in NAACP - according to McClelan.

[Bridget Burke]

4. Not to say anything good about Bush....

But I doubt he cares any more about poor whites than poor people of any other skin color.

However, the Republicans are always glad to use racism.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. I do not know if Bush himself is a racist but,

I ask you how many klansmen voted for Kerry? If there were any I bet he wasn't bragging about it over a cold one around a toasty flaming cross with the boys.

DA
http:www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

[demwing]

8. It's so WEIRD

that they actually wear those hats, which are obvioulsy based on the standard "pillow case over the head" look made popular by the KKKowardly Klansmen of yester-year. Men who were attempting to hide their faces because they could not hide their hate.

[DistressedAmerican]

10. My suggestion...

Being photographed with your Klan gear on while hanging out with your kids be declared child abuse.

[bobweaver]

11. I went to a party at the B**h ranch yesterday, and here are my pictures...

[Charon]

27. Party

Wonder if Mr. Byrd was there?

[freeandbrave]

28. No one denies Byrd's past...

...the difference is that his contemporary actions have at least worked to undo the wrongs of his past.

With Bush, he just takes his past wrongs and multiplies them times ten for the following year.

[robbedvoter]

30. Why dear? Is Byrd trying to sell blacks snake oil too?

How did HE get in this conversation?
P.S. Byrd's own black constituents forgave him - and they are the only ones entitled to that. Not you, not me. I guess they looked at deeds over history.

[LibertyorDeath]

13. That would be a YES!

Several days before last month's national holiday celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, the Bush administration came out forcefully against affirmative action policies initiated at the University of Michigan, which soon, will be under Supreme Court review. To his credit, Secretary of State Colin Powell informed the media that he continued to express "support for the policies used by the University of Michigan."

Condoleeza Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, unfortunately lacks Powell's integrity. She at first claimed that she agreed with her boss's ridiculous charge that Michigan's policy of giving preferences to black and Latino applicants who came from racially oppressed communities is a "quota system." Then in a series of contradictory explanations Rice admitted that her career had indeed "benefited from affirmative action." She also acknowledged that race could be "a factor in university admissions," but not to the extent used in the University of Michigan's admissions policies.

Compounding Bush's decision to oppose affirmative action was his renomination of Charles W. Pickering, Sr., of Mississippi, to the federal appellate court. Pickering's conservative history on racial issues, such as his efforts as a judge to reduce the sentence of a man convicted of burning a cross outside the home of an interracial couple, guarantee strong opposition to his ratification in the Senate. Given the Republican Party's embarrassment in the wake of Senator Trent Lott's resignation late last year, why would Bush seem to go out of his way to alienate the African-American electorate? New York Senator Charles Schumer spoke for many when he informed the press, "I'm still scratching my head in amazement that they actually (re)nominated him."

http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/civilliberties/marable/bushaababy021003.html

[tubbacheez]

14. I find it easier to identify racist policies than racist people.

In my experience doing tolerance work, I've found it somewhat of a distraction trying to categorize individuals as racist or not. There's bound to be an argument, and even if one gets consensus that so-and-so is a racist, little has been gained.

The traditional conservative agenda has been focused on the ideology of self-reliance. Taken in pure form, it isn't a bad ideal. Everybody gets and keeps what was fairly earned. Of course, in reality, this ideal breaks down in several places, and the ruthless and exploitive can easily gain an advantage.

Worse, once advantage is had, it can be used to gain other advantages. The strong get stronger, and the meek get meeker. In other words, practical conservativism is socially stable, but overly so and to a fault. There's scant opportunity for change, once the ball is rolling. The rich and powerful stay that way. The poor and marginalized stay that way.

So here's where racism gets connected.

American racism, in the form of slavery and then in the form of condoned apartheid, spanned many generations. This has left a deep mark on the social strata of even today's culture. The wealth and power of this nation is still held by one group. This group was originally defined by race.

Even if race were somehow eliminated as a contributing factor today, the conservative agenda - that freezes in place of American wealth and power - will effectively preserve the consequences of racism from the past.

So I don't actually care whether Bush himself is racist or not. For me, it's enough to know that his handlers support this dead-end hyper-stable power structure for American society.

That alone is sufficient evidence that he's the wrong person to lead America, where the notion of being "created equal" should be more than just marketing.

[freeandbrave]

16. I believe that racist policies...

...make a racist person.

The good that it serves society is an awareness...so that you know what you are dealing with, what to expect, and the type of character of the person who supports those policies.

[tubbacheez]

18. I'll agree that a long-established pattern of racist policies...

... could substantiate a claim that the entire person who supported those policies is "a racist".


But all in all, I want the racist policies ended. What happens to racist people is of secondary importance to me. They can live or die or change their minds (which would be nice).

They can hold whatever preferences they want in their hearts. But public policy isn't the place to show racial bias. This goes for new racists as well as old racists.

Human nature being what it is, a certain amount of jumping on the bandwagon is expected. I've been trying to point the popular bandwagon in the right direction, away from racism. Let the lemmings jump on then.

[ThorsHammer]

32. Good point on ideal vs. reality

[freeandbrave]

33. Aren't the two...

inseparable? Like heat and fire?

[ThorsHammer]

35. Not so sure

My point was that ideally everyone would be self-reliant, rise on their merits, etc, but in reality some people start their live already on third base.

[freeandbrave]

37. Understood and agreed.

Under this assumption, the conservative mantra 'Pull yourself up by your bootstraps' is particularly daunting to those who start from first...or worse.

And we all know what demographics tend to fall into that description.

[GRLMGC]

19. I don't think he's a racist

I just think he hates poor people including poor whites, poor blacks, poor Hispanics, etc. He sure likes Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzales and they aren't exactly "folks"

[ComerPerro]

20. Bush isn't a racist. If he were, he wouldn't bother pandering

for minority votes the way he does.

Although, racists here in the US seem to be much more likely to vote Bush. In fact, Republicans seem to do very well with intolerance of all types.

[robbedvoter]

31. That's why Trent Lott was front and center at his coronation.

[desi826]

42. Bush is pandering...

because he needs a way to split the minority vote; more specifically the black and Latino vote, because they are the only votes that can sink the party and they know it.
That doesn't mean he's not a racist.
Des

[Sparkle]

21. He's probably not that racist.

If one of his daughters marry a black guy, we'll find out for sure.:-)

[freeandbrave]

25. Do you know something we don't?

??????

[earth mom]

23. * doesn't care about anyone-so yes he is racist. eom

[rumpel]

38. well, I heard they call Jeb's children, "The Little Brown Ones"

[bush_is_wacko]

39. Yes bush is a racists. These appointees have all been an attempt

to keep that information from the public. If I remember rightly he asked the Brazilian President if there were "black people in his country too." Condeleeza Rice had lean over and explian to him that there were many black people in Brazil Mr. President.

I can't remember the exact wording or which country it was for sure, but it was quite telling.