There you go again: Jimmy Carter, Race, and Civility

You do realize that King was a Republican, Right?
I must whole heartedly disagree with you on one point. When a president of THIS country, takes over private industries, Automotive, banking, healthcare, begins to meddle in education, starts assembling a private army, starts recruiting children, denounces our country, starts palling with dictators of illegal regimes, civility goes right out the window, this is a formula for disaster and to ignore it would be ignorant if now down right stupid. The dissent you see, the open rebellion are the people of this country seeing they have elected a liar, a rabid wolf in sheep clothing, a practitioner of skullduggery and they don't like it. Is civility to let a would be dictator slowly destroy our republic? Is that your definition of civility? It's not mine!

Jim,

King, a Republican? This is a claim promoted by the National Black Republican Association, but no one knows for sure. The NBRA inferred this from the historical attitudes of Dixiecrats and came to the conclusion that anyone who opposed slavery and discrimination must, a priori, be the opposite of Democrat who dominated the south. This is better imagination than logic.

Board of Election records notwithstanding, King opposed Goldwater. King also said, "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism." Still think he was Republican? Maybe. But I doubt it.

In any case, to the main point of your commentary: the takeover of American business started under Bush. TARP, Paulson's meddling in the financial services industry, forced mergers by the Fed, and the commandeering of AIG -- were all Bush administration machinations. And while Bush opposed Freddie and Fannie, he was not presecent enough to do anything about it while his Party controlled Congress.

Obama, as wrong as he is in doing it, has simply extended--albeit in an aggrevated manner--a practice for which he obtained a pretext and precedent from his predecessor.

As distasteful as Obama's economic plans and actions are, my point in the article is this: conservatives will convince more people with irrefutable logic articulated in a civil tone than they hope to by calling Obama a dictator or comparing him to Hitler or Stalin, etc.

Carter played the race card. Those who choose to descend to that level are no better than he.

You are incorrect, King was a registered Republican, although you are correct that he did suggest radical ideas like democratic socialism, he also strongly preached and supported independence, self reliance, and personal responsibility.
First of all, you are correct that a lot of socialism flourished under Bush, I always felt Bush was a Rhino. We've been moving seriously to the left for 20 years. We are so far left right now and it dumbfounds me how the wacko liberals keep say how Bush was so conservative, he wasn't! He did do a good job on terrorism, however he let the liberals run amok and destroy the economy.
Second, the fall of our economy 2 years ago didn't start with Bush, it started with Carter. Policies that began in his administration fell dormant under Reagan and then were built on during the Clinton presidency. That was when the banking industry were being extorted and threaten into taking bad loans all in the name of social justice. That's when legislation was being crafted of greed that would inevitably come back to haunt us years later. Bush certainly was a liberal in spite of the Rhino badge, and for that I have no forgiveness, but don’t believe that this all happened under him.
Last, if you think I'm not going to call Obama a Marxist to be civil, you're wrong. He is what he is and what you call civility, averting your eyes to the truth is what got us here in the first place. Michael, a lie is a lie. Wrong is wrong, truth is truth. What you call civility is a lie in my opinion. It's like letting Roman Polanski go free; after all, it wasn't rape-rape.

You stated: "And while Bush opposed Freddie and Fannie, he was not presecent enough to do anything about it while HIS Party controlled"

Hmm now that's very odd locution for someone claiming to be a conservative, "while his party" controlled. What party affiliation is most associated with your vote, Democrat?

The first time Bush, and I am no fan of his by the way, attempted to deal with Fannie and Freddie, the Dems controlled the Senate. In fact even after the Senate returned to Republican control the margin was so slim the Democrats had the power of filibuster and stymied every effort to reform Fannie and Freddie.

After 9/11 Bush became a man obsessed with preventing another attack and did not adequately devote effort to domestic issues. Obama is opposite. To our economic detriment.

TARP was intended to put liquidity into the system and to free up credit markets. There was no intention to run AIG, or to force limits on executive compensation, or to take controlling interest in the failing automakers. Barrack Obama has as Jim points out made it a policy to attempt nationalization of as much of the economy/industry as possible. Nationalization of banking and industry are, like it or not, Marxist priorities.

Obama is not extending the Bush Administration's policies, which he criticized so harshly during the campaign; He has used Bush policies as a spring board to implement a policy of takeovers never contemplated by Bush.

As for shouting "you lie" Wilson's apology to the president was good enough for me. He was however factually correct and there is no need to distance the party or conservatism from him for that. There have been far more vile attacks from the left in congress against Bush and against conservatives than that.

Thank you for your comment.

It IS possible to be conservative and oppose the antics of the Republican Party. For years, true conservatives -- Buckley, Friedman, Goldwater, Hart, et. al. -- did precisely that.

It is curious to claim the Republicans had a majority in Congress, but not enough of one to effect conservative change. In fact, what they lacked was leadership, not just at the top but within Congress. Under Bush, and while Congressional leaders were breaking the law, earmarking us into deeper debt, or practicing their rumba for Dancing With the Stars, we had the largest non-defense expansion of the Federal budget (Cato Institute).

The TARP program was not meant to inject liquidity into the financial system--that is what the Fed is for, and in fact that is just what they did: M2, the wider definition of money, grew by 8% in the last year, well over the 5% upper limit target. (See Anna Schwartz.) Rather, the TARP program was designed to remove synthetic derivatives (CDO) and mortgage backed securities (MBS) for which there is no liquid market from the banking sector, thus cleaning up the banks' balance sheets that were hammered by mark-to-market pricing. Application of TARP funds outside this purpose, started under Bush, violate the original intent and language of the law. Today banks still hold the toxic assets which have increased in valued.

Had Bush not allowed Paulson to TARP us, had he held government expansion in check, had he made permanent the tax cuts, had he in fact made capital gains and dividend taxes zero, he would have arrested the recession and drawn a clear demarcation with Obama.

Obama is indeed extending Bush policies, and using them as license for even more liberalism.

The only way the Bush Republican party will return to the Reagan-Goldwater Republican party is by adherence to conservative principles and a adoption of a code of ethics. See my article, "What the Republican Party Must Do Now".

Under Bush and the dancing Republicans:

The largest real annual growth rate of nondefense outlays since Nixon. Here are the numbers:

Johnson +4.1%
Nixon +5.0%
Carter +1.6%
Reagan -1.4%
Bush +3.8%
Clinton +2.1%
Bush +4.8%

- The Cato Institute: "The Grand Old Spending Party, How Republicans Became Big Spenders"

There is no doubt the republicans lacked conservative leadership - you get no argument from me there. Bush is as was his father, a RHINO. The leadership in Repub controlled committee was equally weak. With the likes of Specter, Snowe and several other liberal-- RHINO -- members of the Senate there never existed the support to reform the regulatory scheme for the financial system. Bush did nothing to fight for right because in my opinion he was willing to give up whatever it took to keep his foreign policy initiatives and funding for the war going. I'd have preferred no TARP and bankruptcy is not a dirty word, it's the downside to fiscal mismanagement in a self correcting market place.

The purpose of TARP to remove toxic assets from balance sheets was billed as a necessary component to the fed increasing liquidity. The agenda was to get banks lending and to prevent a domino effect on the financial system. The Bush agenda was not per se to increase the size of government, it was to prevent total financial collapse. Unfortunately the effect of TARP and the over-reactionary policies of the Bush administration predictably did nothing to correct the problem. The policy change i.e. the intent of the Obama administration to use the crisis exacerbated by the admins Bush errors in judgement, was in using Bush's mistakes to justify government take over of as many sectors of the economy as possible. Though in effect Bush made worse the mess we're in, the exploitation of it to aid a far left BIGGER government agenda is pure Obama.

... I think we agree, Aftershock.

Thank you again for taking the time to comment.

I do agree totally that "Had Bush not allowed Paulson to TARP us, had he held government expansion in check, had he made permanent the tax cuts, had he in fact made capital gains and dividend taxes zero, he would have arrested the recession" we would be months out of recession and likely seeing fewer job losses. It would then be clearly Obama's economy to destroy, and I have no doubt he would do just as he is. Bush placed his faith in the wrong people.

But those assets as you say are still on the books and there's another bigger wave of foreclosures coming, especially on the commercial real estate side of the equation.

We seem to be in agreement. Now that I understand what you're saying, I'll visit more often. I don't require agreement to enjoy an exchange of thoughts and ideas - especially if I'm wrong.

I enjoy the exchange as well and look foward to further discussions with you.

Warm wishes,

I never implied Michael wasn't a conservative; I just emphatically disagree with him about being civil to the scum that are dismantling this great country of ours. I like much of what I have read from Michael, we just totally disagree on how we should treat that lying Marxist in the White House.

Referring you back to our recent discussion -- I think Jim's comment above is an illustration of why promoting civility in political discourse is an uphill effort. It's apparently Glenn Beck's world, and we're living in it.

I can understand Jim's trepidtion. We on the right fear a growing and irreversible gap between the trajectory of our country and what the Framers had in mind.

Just this week we had two egregious examples of the nanny state gone wild: a "pay czar" limiting compensation at private enterprises, and the government regulating disclosure of product endorsements on blogs.

The Founders never envisioned such intrusion into every aspect of a private citizen's life. And it will get exponentially worse under health care "reform".

What I cannot understand is the right's anger. We knew what we were getting. Obama didn't lie. He told us. But he won the election, and we must respect that result as diligently as we whould fight for its reversal in 2010 and 2012.

I believe, and I understand I am in the minority among conservatives, that civility and well-founded arguments will win more minds in elections.

If I am wrong, so be it. It still is a better way to live. One, I believe, the Founders would approve.

Except -- when he was politically active -- Thomas Jefferson, who had to have been the most devious of all our Founding Fathers. It's fascinating to read about the dirty tricks that he and his followers (chief among them, James Madison and James Monroe) pulled for political advantage.

However, one thing that Thomas Jefferson was not was coarse, and I don't think any of our Founding Fathers would appreciate the language used in political 'debate' nowadays.

My puzzlement over Michael's conservatism was unrelated to anything you had posted. I actually went right from his post to the comment section and hadn't read your comments yet.

Any how I believe Michael when he says he is a conservative. His position on civility does not affect me; it's right for him I guess, though I'm not sure where the threshold from civility to incivility is from his perspective. That's very subjective if you ask me.

I used to be less abrasive with liberals than I am today, but the results were no better. Just one long, drawn out -- never ending -- debate after another. Fruitless.

I tend to agree with you Jim. If a piano is falling from the rooftop of a 25 story building, I don't want some gentleman dispassionately warning: "say old chap I believe a piano is about to crash down upon *$#@$%^(*)(!!XX, ehr, oh, ahh sorry old man, apparently my warning came a bit too late to be of much use".

I'd rather a longshoreman with a big mouth yell "hey moron, get the "f" outta the way" as he shoves me to the side in the nick of time.

I gave up on civility along time ago as well. they aren't civil, when the yloose debate they become vulgar, and start calling you names, they use PC and racism against you yet they themselves are using and exploiting racism. Our "civility is wha thas gotten us where we are now, the mess that we're in and I'm sick of being civil when they are not civil in return. When are conservative going to learn when we turn our cheek liberals stab us in the back.

"I used to be less abrasive with liberals than I am today, but the results were no better. Just one long, drawn out -- never ending -- debate after another. Fruitless."

Debate doesn't mean that the other person is going to agree with you. At least you were debating, respecting that someone else can have a different view than you. Are you only satisfied if the other person comes to your side?

Never mind. You already said that debating you is pointless so don't bother answering.

What he was saying Benny is that liberals will never concede a point but conservatives do, since they won't, the debate never ends. Liberals always ask for civility, they often offer civility, they just never follow through with it.

Jim,

I don't think civility is a liberal thing or conservative thing, but I am hoping it is an American trait.

Robert Reich, for example, a liberal by his own definition, seems always civil and even open to conservative ideas. In his book "Supercapitalism" he adopted one of Milton Friedman's ideas, to end the double taxation of corporations.

This is the kind of solution on which both sides should work together for the common good. That working together presupposes mutual respect.

Is that for the one time that Reich gave in, I could list a thousand things that we gave in on. There in lies the problem. We keep giving, they keep taking, and the results is the mess we're in now. The country is the furthest to the left it's ever been, and moving further left each day against the will of the people. And the people that you're telling me to be civil to are ignoring us and doing what they want. They never intended to be civil; they are going forward with their agenda regardless of what the American citizens want. Is that what you refer to as civility?

No, that has nothing to do with civility but with excitement they see through the window of opportunity the election gave them.

Civility requires of us in temporary opposition, I believe, not to call Obama and his cohorts names, but to attack, as vigorously as can of course, the premise and logic of their arguments alone.

A little personal plug ... that is what I am trying to do on Townhall, on the Examiner:

http://www.examiner.com/x-24933-Economic-Policy-Examiner

and on Twitter: http://twitter.com/freecapitalism

If I don't call Obama a Marxist, he'll become a Capitalist? He'll abandon his Marxist practices, stop taking over companies, stop trying to convert our medical system into socialized medicine, stop trying to tax the middle class until there isonly 2 classses (poor and Democrat eletist), he'll stop trying to penalize success and stop rewarding failure?
I dunno Michael, I think you've been sniffing the Kool Aid.
I was one of the few that before the election was telling people that he was a Marxist and that his centrist facade was a ruse. I was one of only a few and the leftist said we were right wing extremist. I foretold tha the was going to start government takeovers and debt and tax increases, and I was told, "be civil, give him a chance".
maybe if a few more conservatives hadn't been so Civil (like the wackos on the left are never civil) maybe we wouldn't have a Marxist who thinks he's God for president.

... Bush a "statist" for having allowed his Treasury Secretary to build what amounted to a hedge fund with public funds? Or for allowing him to play mergers and acquisitions with the financial sector?

I am not sure any Treasury department ever had such concentration of power.

When Bush did these things, I wrote an article tongue-in-cheek, "Socialism comes to America", long before Obama was elected. I did not call Bush a Socialist though. There is a difference.

Obama is following leftist economic principles, to be sure. He hasn't declared himself to be socialist or Marxist though; i.e., he hasn't called for the complete government take over of all factors of production.

But my objection is not even about your calling him Marxist, but more about signs at the Tea Parties likening him to Hitler or Lenin.

On this matter, please see my latest article "Economic Week in Review, week 41, 2009"

that instance Statism. I have no confidence that GWB was not a statist at heart given the social agenda he helped move forward with the liberal leadership in the house and senate. His veto pen must have been out of ink, he just kept pulling the old ceremonial signing pen out.

Refusing to label, for instance, Obama as a Marxist in order appear open minded or civil -- and Marxism is what I believe resides at the core of his political preparation -- is to assume that the public at large makes that distinction or that they have some innate understanding of what the Obama administration has been attempting to pull off. You didn't call Bush a socialist, however one could at least outline the case for such a remark and as an opinion piece it would be neither uncivil nor necessarily incorrect.

Liberals are somewhat clever in agreeing with particular conservative principles now and again, so long as the seeming paradox doesn't mean catastrophic failure for their agenda. At any rate, we're not engaged in news reportage, we're writing opinion pieces, arguing with available facts our theory of the case. I respect your work, but that does not mean it's always the best approach for everyone, or even the most effective way to further the general understanding of what's at stake, what's going on.

I'll concede that at times a display of outrage crosses the line into shrill ranting. But that too can affect the general discourse positively.

... for your comments.

Whether Obama is a Marxist or not remains to be seen, and only history will judge that. There are so many elements to following Marx, that one cannot definitively ascribe such a label by inferring from a leader's proposed policy.

For example, Obama did not say, "I insist everyone give up their health insurance in exchange for a mandated government plan." He said instead just the opposite.

He did not say, "We are throwing out our tax code in favor of a steeply progressive one" (one of the tenets of Marx' "The Communist Manifesto"). He said the opposite, although we have crept into a progressive tax code under both Parties.

I am not proposing civility just to "look good" but to make America and conservatism look good. And because I believe it is a more effective way to make an argument.

The last thing we need is to lose public support because we look like "wingnuts" to the rest of the world. The idea is to win elections!

Cheers,

Though Obama has accomplished little - so far - he did not come to us in a vacuum. There is more than enough evidence to infer if not outright prove his Marxist underpinning. It's not what he says on the public stage, it's what he does that betrays his Marxist agenda. It's not what he learned in law school it's what he learned from a Marxist father and from Marxist associations that have formed the man. There is smoke and somewhere fire has created the smoke. History will be too late my friend, he needs to be judged on best evidence now and civility will not alert enough people to the fire in time to extinguish it.

My patience for Liberals and their nonsense is GONE! ONE too many times I was told that as a Christian I was to be forbearing and tolerant. Then when I tried to be, it was used against me. NEVER AGAIN!

New Post at my place!

Yes, I wish we could have a civil discourse with the leftists running things, but it will never happen.

To the left, being civil while a republican is in office means calling the president a Liar on the floor of the senate (harry reid) a Liar and a Cheat in the House (numerous democrats) and calls for his assasination by the leftists in the street.

To the left, for the Republicans to be Civil, means absolutely no opposition to their schemes no matter how hare-brained. Civility in Republicans means turning into Olympia Snowe, or Lindsey Graham, go along with whatever the dems want and call it "Bipartisanship".

We tried to be civil at the town-halls, what happened? the left sends union goons to beat people up, prevent anyone other than their supporters from speaking, and Biting off Fingers.

Wilson was 100% factually correct when he told Obama "You Lie" and Obama knew it when he tried to deflect.

While he may have picked the wrong venue, Millions of Americans were like me, jumping up from the couch and cheering for the then unknown republican.

Meanwhile we have that little weasel from florida, Allen Grayson telling the country that Republicans want you to Die Quickly, and he's defended by the wicked witch of capitol hill.

We would love to play by the rules of civility, but the dems keep changing the Rules.

Civility is fine and good as long as it's reciprocated, but when the other side is playing dirty, you ask us to be polite and civil?

as the kids say when texting, FTS!

""For example, Obama did not say, "I insist everyone give up their health insurance in exchange for a mandated government plan." He said instead just the opposite.

He did not say, "We are throwing out our tax code in favor of a steeply progressive one" (one of the tenets of Marx' "The Communist Manifesto"). He said the opposite, although we have crept into a progressive tax code under both Parties""


Yes, we also have all seen videos (more than one) of Obama telling his union supporters that he is a strong proponent of Single Patyer health insurance. So either Obama was lying to the union people (yeah right), or he was lying to America when he said e Wasn't for single payer.

He also said he didn't want to run auto companies, on the same day that he was micromanaging Chrysler, and firing the GM CEO.

Which Obama do we believe?

Do you trust me or your lying eyes?

I agree with your observations. There is a difference, though, between taking over GM -- as distasteful as that -- is and nationalizing an entire industry.

One might rightly conclude that Bush nationalized the mortgage repurchase industry by putting Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship. About 86% of all mortgages are now owned by the government.

Our freedoms are gradually being eroded by both Parties. If Republicans were serious about conservative principles, they would all forswear earmarks, if for nothing else than symbolism and contrast. They would come out hard for ending double taxation of business. They would come out for a flat tax. They would come out for an end to the IRS. They would come out for reining in the Fed.


I believe we must fight hard -- objectively, without regard to Parties, and on solid conservative principles -- but we must be sportsman too, even if the other sides plays dirty.

Thank you for your comments.

Well put Jackpine!

Michael, it starts with a lot of community organizing, one or two takeovers, and "progresses" from there. I don't think you're taking a conservative view here. The erosion you mention is towards a Marxist style authoritarian state. Read as follows; The Socialist Labor Party [in America] by Joseph Brandon Published Aug 1, 1925 in the Weekly People. As follows:

"Organization Must Preceed Revolution. Obviously the workers cannot wait until the Social Revolution has stepped upon the scene and then organize. Tactics therefore dictate the organization of the working class today, under capitalism, into an organization whose primary purpose is to seize the industries and act as the framework of the new social order. Just as the chick develops in the shell before the world as a distinct creature, so the future society must be built up under capitalism. And just as the fully developed chick breaks the shell of its egg, so the shell of capitalism will never be broken until the organization of future society is developed to the point where it is able to function. Does it not follow logically that the working class must organize today, under capitalism, in order to achieve its emancipation?" (reprinted 1925 as the Arm & Hammer pamphlet No. 8) full text at: http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/slp/1925/0801- brandon-wpavsslp.pdf

Michael the Radical Left's - Obama's - Marxist goal has it's origins at the turn of the 20th century. Again pay attention to the dots that have already been connected by others. The similarities then to now are astounding. One need not be a Democrat to have sympathies with their Utopian agenda, some just need to experience sufficient pain to go there. Soon we're all gonna be feelin that economic pain. Then what?

This isn't about Republican vs Democrats or Bush vs Obama so why are you constantly making arguments reducing it to that? I don't think most bloggers on TH look at it that way, even if they once did. This is about the survival of our country, of our constitutional republic. How we've gotten to this point what past administrations or congresses are to blame are no longer relevant, the issue is where we've been taken in the past 12 months and where that course is leading us today. It's clearly NOT to Utopia and we better get people to stop following Obama like lemmings cause his policies are set just beyond the edge of the chasm where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will be lost.

To everything there is a season

I am not reducing the arguments as you suggest, rather to conservative vs. liberal, being rigorous where we must and seeking common solutions where we can.

Give me one common solution of significance "we" have reached with the radicals on the left since 2006. What I've seen is a whole lot of kowtowing to the their globalist agenda. Besides, if you're a realist then you must know the debate has been over since January. There is no common ground, you either agree with the radicals to our left or you're a racist. I dare say even if there were some sort of "common ground", it would be due to a capitulation of moral conservative values to the debased values of a largely atheist left.

to promote civility and moderation in our political discourse, but when as I see it more extreme discourse becomes necessary to preserve our liberty and freedom what would be gained by continuing a moderate or "civil" position? Do you believe our very freedom is not in jeopardy?

With more Americans venting their spleen over the expansion of socialism to America, Michael has an insight!

O WONDER!

When Democrats paraded behind signs declaring "F**K THE TROOPS," did Michael detect uncivil behavior then? No.

When Democrats called REpublicans "Fascists" and "Nazis," did Michael get a whiff of unsavory discourse? Of course not!

As Democrats suggeste3d Sarah Palin should stay in the kitchen, did Michael cry "foul" at the fetid stench of hateful sexist rhetoric? Nary a "tsk" did he mutter.

But now that Americans question the RULING DEMOCRATS, any word of opposition is reprehensible HATE SPEECH in his eye.

My first impressions of Michael Avari and his American Civility seems more correct to me now. He believes that being civil, i.e. less extreme or moderate in political discourse is a conservative value. He models himself a William F. Buckley Jr conservative. I will give him this credit, Buckley I mean, he was devastating to liberals in debate, but he was not so much a staunch defender of conservatism as someone that enjoyed the gamesmanship of political debate.

Here's the rub: Michael states "The only way the Bush Republican party will return to the Reagan-Goldwater Republican party is by adherence to conservative principles and a adoption of a code of ethics." But William F. Buckley though having obvious respect for Goldwater and Reagan was not on the same page as Goldwater who many consider the father of modern conservatism. Buckley's interpretation of good conservatism was to move conservative discourse to the center. Which begs the question - what is political conservatism? Is it a less extreme moderate or center right philosophy? or is it a strict adherence to the written values and principles expressed by the Declaration of Independence and Constitution for the United States? And if the latter is true, can our extreme defence of those values and principles be uncivil?

You both misread my thesis or intention, i am afraid. I deplore uncivil behavior on both sides. Carter's diatribe against the right is the theme of this article, recall.

Can I think of one instance where both sides cooperated and conservative principles were deployed to the country's benefit, you ask Aftershock? Yes, but it goes back some years: the Reagan tax cuts.

Yes, I believe our very freedom is in jeopardy, and I invite you read some of the other articles I have written, particularly the recent ones on economic policy that address this issue. Economic and political freedom are inextricably linked.