The View From 1776

The Fruit Of Obama’s Racemongering

A Glimpse into the Political Future
Jonathan Chait’s advance apologia for the Democrats’ defeat in November


Democratic politicians have been the great beneficiaries of the racially charged patronage programs spun off by the Great Society—but the supposed “leg-up” offered to blacks has produced, despite trillions in expenditures, a relatively stable poverty rate over the past 50 years, with African-Americans disproportionately present among the poor. Chait never considers the possibility that some who oppose Obama are tired of paying for an ongoing failure. They’re also tired of liberals’ inability to come to grips with it.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/15 at 09:20 PM
  1. Thomas,

    I suspect that predictions of overwhelming Democratic defeats in the coming midterm elections are premature. The conservatives have hitched their star to the failure of the Affordable Care Act, and its late successes have cast a pall on that strategy.

    The new second prong of the Republican strategy that is only recently emerging is to link Obama with the "Common Core" standards now gaining prevalence in our schools.

    Both of these weapons being polished by the conservatives to a sharp edge may in the end prove to be double edged swords.

    The post implies that the discussion of an unhealthy concentration of wealth in the top 0.001 of the population may also find its way into the discussion in surprising ways. Eventually, many of the Tea Party enthusiasts will discover that the Koch Brothers are not looking out for their well being and may begin to find their positions distasteful.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/20  at  07:39 PM
  2. Jay--Speaking iof the top .0001%, note that Obama has them running the government--the heads of the Federal Reserve, Treasury and Justice Departments are all playing revolving chairs at Goldman Sachs, Chase, Morgan, etc. They are witing the rukes that regulate all the honest businesses while allowing their cronies to steal us blind--as they did in the sub-prime mortgage debacle--And then they bailed each other out by piling up debt. You may hate the Kochs but they are not in the seats of power--they did not cause the mortgage crisis, and they didn't get bailed out with our money. I woukld look elsewhere for the true villains!
    Posted by bill greene  on  04/20  at  08:52 PM
  3. J. Jay,

    One problem with your presumed Republican ‘Common Core strategy’ is that there isn’t one as yet. At least, not one all Republicans agree to. Republicans are still groping toward a position on Common Core, and may decide to drop it altogether. Even among conservatives, there are strong differences of opinion regarding ‘Common Core’, with some worried it’s subversive, some supporting it, and others arguing there is nothing especially wrong with it. Therefore, your weapon analogy, and its insinuation of a conservative rallying-cry and assault on it, fairly crumbles.

    BTW, anytime a program like ‘Common Core’ is in the hands of radicals like Obama, &Co;, there is legitimate reason for concern. Obama has amply demonstrated he/they will reshape whatever he is given to achieve his goals without regard to limits or to plain-dealing. One such goal is polluting young minds with his own warped ideology. He has already violated on his own signature law so many times it is no longer the same law. Thus, there is no reason to suppose won’t reshape Common Core to his liking any less than he did ACA, and not so much what is in Common Core as what it becomes as resists repairing even after they’re gone. Possibly, there’s nothing sinister here, but it does bear watching.

    Regarding the top 0.001% (or 0.0001%), where do you find that either in Thomas’ original posting or in the linked article? You pull these baloney misattributions from thin air just to see what gets a rise.

    Regarding the Koch brothers, how are they any more influential (or worse) than George Soros’ funding of radical groups, some of whom deliberately subvert our elections, undermine national security, undermine border security, and exploit racial grievances purely for political and financial gain (see http:,// )? As usual, you raise specters where none exist. Therefore, it would be helpful if you would be a little more specific regarding what is it you find so sinister about them? Following your reasoning, the Koch’s are guilty by virtue of their’ potential’ for influencing political outcomes. This is guilt by presumption. If that is your criteria, then we have much bigger fish to fry. Whereas the Koch’s spent some $200-million restoring limited-government and similarly benign causes affecting no one adversely, Soros spent more than $7-billion on leftist causes intended to wreck our system of government and our way of life.

    Until a couple of months ago, few had ever heard of the Koch Brothers despite their involvement in politics since the early 1980s. Suddenly, they are on every liberal-socialists’ radar; despite having done nothing worthy of such attention and vilification. Even the left-favoring Wikipedia’s description of the Koch’s activities is remarkably devoid of controversy (see ) considering how they typically treat conservatives the left has marked for destruction. Their sole affront appears to be claims they attempted sabotage against climate-change policies; itself the subject of great controversy and the result of a subversive movement. Apparently, the Koch brothers aren’t always on the side of conservatism, security (e.g., opposed the Patriot Act) or the Republican Party either. Most of their $200-million was spent on libertarian think-tanks and free-market foundations, and not toward influencing elections in the way of a Soros. So, JJ, why all the sudden angst over them?

    The brother’s contributions to Tea Party activists no more defines how those groups think or utilize their contributions than does a typical big-donor Democrat’s contributions to radical leftist groups define their thinking. Nor, does it mislead those who are doing the actual leading of such movements. Each contributes to a group he feels reflects his own values. Thus, whether or not the Koch brothers have the Tea Party’s interests at heart is moot as the brothers have, thus far, had little influence over movement formation, national policy, or political outcomes. Where Soros differs is that he has had considerable influence (all bad) because he not only funds many leftist groups but was also instrumental to founding some of the more radical of them. Significantly, his giving is directed at weakening U.S. power and policies (hence ‘subversive’). Your attack on the Koch’s, therefore, is simply an attempt at distracting others from the more pervasive, corrupting, and dangerous influence of Soros and similar super-rich reptilian radicals. Where is your angst over the likes of Soros? There is a villain for you, not the Koch’s who are guilty of no more than doing their part to salvage country and its core values from the perverse likes of Comrade Soros.

    As usual, you have nothing with which to defend fellow-travelers, so must resort to snide sophistry and caricature. Rather than present coherent arguments for your side, you distract by flinging down what you believe to be devastatingly unanswerable arguments; which are nothing of the sort. Your arguments consist of leftist talking points so stale, hollow and trite as hardly seems worth the effort of rebutting them. Or, they would be except for unwary visitors to these pages who have yet to discover your unserious wiles.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/21  at  07:39 PM
  4. Bob--You are eloquent and passionate. I love it! Especially the line about "the super-rich reptilian radicals."

    Interestingly, these posts indicate that Mr. Jay, who I suspect may be thoroughly middle class like myself, and maybe you too?, has taken side with those reptilian ideologues who are intent on ruling us poor people from the top down, for our own good, because that .0001% know better than us what is best for us, no matter how much we want to be free of their insane ideas on they can "make things better."

    As for common core curriculum, it is simply an attempt by the elite intellectuals to brainwash the citizenry of this nation into acceptinbg the liberal view of government. Once the power is given to a central government bureaucracy to dictate subject coverage, we will be reenacting Orwell's "1984." History shows that America grew from a 1620 wilderness outpost, in 300 years, to the world superpower of 1920--all without a shred of common curriculum, or actually, without even public schools!
    Posted by bill greene  on  04/21  at  08:10 PM
  5. Bob and Bill,

    There is a grain of truth in what you say. I confess that I do sometimes like to point out fallacies in Thomas's posts to see what you both will say in response to a gust of truth from beyond the Fox News echo chamber. There is nothing more stimulating that a good discussion! And Bill has guess correctly that like he, I am hopelessly in the middle class, and far below the stratospheric heights of the 1%.

    And you may be aware that the "Common Core" was not an inspiration of the Obama folks, but originated privately from non-political sources.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/22  at  04:26 PM
  6. That should have been, "like him."
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/22  at  04:27 PM
  7. J. Jay,

    Coming from the premier purveyor of serial, usually deliberate fallacies to this site, that crack or yours that you "... like to point out fallacies in Thomas's posts ..." is right cheeky. I little doubt you would like pointing out such mistakes that it must be driving you totally nuts finding so few.

    As to Common Core, it was hatched by and is the product of the National Governors’ Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and is, therefore, politically sourced (not privately as you assert; see ). Just one more of your serial fallacies! Seriously, you need to look stuff up before inserting proverbial foot in it.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/24  at  06:37 PM
  8. I don't see why it matters who first suggested a standardized curricilum and I suspect someone somewhere got the idea before the two organizations that Bob mentioned endorsed it and promoted it. There are very few original ideas; almost all go back to prior times.

    What matters is that this is a bad idea, the Left and Obama favor it, and hopefully the Republicans and some sane :emac rats will kill it!
    Posted by Bill greene  on  04/24  at  08:06 PM
  9. Bill,

    I am unclear what you mean by “sane :emac rats”, but, while I agree with you it does not much matter who pushed for greater standardization (and regimentation). I have to disagree with you, however, as to the reasons Common Core is bad. It is not only highly flawed on technical grounds, but also apparently on political ones as it is a massive usurpation on the Obama-care model to entrap our children into the statist/socialist mold. It is not within the federal purview to meddle in local systems of education, and persuasive arguments are being made by some very thoughtful people as to its un-Constitutionality. Rather than develop my own arguments at this point, I will leave you with the following evaluations of CC that I found interesting by Hillsdale College, Freedom Project Education, and Heartland Institute. I need cross check some of the things alleged one of these videos, and need to delve deeper into this subject (as should every thinking American parent and grandparent) before pronouncing judgment on Common Core, but my take so far is not favorable. – Hillsdale College presenter argues rationally and factually against Common Core – conservative Freedom Project Education - harsh assessment of Common Core, but you can tell the two presenters (who are education professionals) have been thinking about CC’s challenges for quite some time from ‘homeschooling’ perspective. – Heartland Institute - pro/con assessment of Common Core is critical on mostly technical grounds, also somewhat on political and educational grounds. “A central goal [of CC] is to create a crisis in education when many more students fail the tougher CC tests.” The presenter is attempting to stay objective in her assessment throughout, but you can tell she is struggling with that.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/26  at  07:01 AM
  10. Bob,

    My typo: sane ":emac rats”, was supposed to read "sane Democrats" -- hopefully there are a FEW?!

    I thought my post #4 above pointed out both the technical and political problems withh CC: "it is simply an attempt by the elite intellectuals to brainwash the citizenry of this nation into acceptinbg the liberal view of government. Once the power is given to a central government bureaucracy to dictate subject coverage, we will be reenacting Orwell's "1984."

    At the moment Obama's following endorse the intellectual elite's liberal agenda, allied with the teachers' unions, etc. But the same Orwellian flaw would be obvious if any group gained control to dictate a national position on the subjects taught our youth.
    Posted by bill greene  on  04/26  at  04:38 PM
  11. Bill,

    I would not hold out much hope of that species either.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/26  at  05:39 PM
  12. The "common core" is basically a list of skills that students should learn by the time they reach certain grade levels. For instance, they should be able to add and subtract by the end of the first grade.

    How such a list of skills can be turned into a sinister plot is beyond me!
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/29  at  09:52 AM
  13. Jay-

    I attended a little red school house with 16 kids in my class--a small rural public school. That was in 1938 on--75 years ago. We were taught the alphabet and simple "Jane likes her dog" stories, as well as addition and some substraction in the first grade- I was 5 years old. Then we more or less mastered those things in the second grade. The third grade was multiplication, more reading, penmanship. Fourth grade saw long-division, fractions, and more reading and writing. the 5th and 6th grades went over these things rill we all knew them pretty well. Along the way they taught geography, social studies and general science.

    My mother rold me she did pretty much the same in her 1906-1915 public school. My kids in the public schools did the same in the 1960's-1980. I knew they were on the same skill level because like all kids, to learn long-division in the 4th grade, they had to review and master the multiplication tables not fully learned in the 3rd grade!

    My point is that school systems have been following this relatively fixed calendar of skill training for over 100 years--there is no need to label it common core or impose it on every school in the nation. There might be a BETTER WAY and that can only be found by allowing diverse experimentation. Every school should be allowed to pursue its own schedule, allowing for the wide variation in the individual child's development, and free of top-down mandates.

    But we all knowm it is not the three R's that Washington is after--they have already dumbed that down--eliminating penmanship, cursive writing, or memorizing the tables or learning long-division. It is the social sciences they want to standardize--with emphasis on America's history of slavery, subjugation of women, how we nuked Hiroshima, discriminated against homosexuals, locked up the Japanese citizens in WWII, and imposed a glass ceiling on women.

    The educational establishment has already inserted class time segments on multiculturalism and gender studies--even in math classes! How much of this do you want to see escalated in future classrooms!?
    Posted by bill greene  on  04/29  at  07:05 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.