So quit bringing it up!

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

http://www.reformedandconservative.com/2012/01/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican.html

I’ve always seen you as the level headed and reasonable type, so I was really surprised to read this impassioned post.

But I have to disagree.

I really don’t think that Perry was referring to CSA or beckoning back to a period of slavery or racism, rather he was using his usual rhetoric and references that he always uses (regardless of the state/day).

The question that he answered was “Now, Gov. Perry, are you suggesting on this Martin Luther King Jr. day that the federal government has no business scrutinizing the states where they were denied the right to vote?”

Now, notice that the question itself throws Perry into a trap. First, with the mention of Martin Luther Kind Jr. which had LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION. The question was loaded from the beginning. The moderator didn’t just throw “on this Martin Luther King Jr. day” into every question, it was specifically inserted into this question. Before Perry could ever answer the question, the moderator was already hinting that he thought Perry supported racist policies. I think that it’s obvious to anyone watching that the question was intended to force Perry into a situation to make him look racist.

The second part, I’m afraid (regarding you’re accusation that he was referring to CSA) is you reading into his statements what you already would like to believe is there. Fist, Perry did what any smart and slick politician would do. He easily saw that the question was loaded and knew that the moderator was wanting Perry to make the debate about race. Once the debate becomes about race, Perry is automatically a racist (we see this even here, you were itching to calling him racist). After seeing this trap, he made the issue not about race, but about federalism. Likely because States’ rights is an issue that is really hot among Republican voters. As you said yourself, it is not racist to support state’s rights, rather what you found racist was simply the fashion in which he said it, and the place and time.

As you noted, Perry used the imagery of war, as if the States were at war with the Federal Government. But I’m afraid that you’re link of this rhetoric to the CSA isn’t really a unique one. Perry (among others, even democrats) often refer to certain issues as wars. Think to yourself, if it was a democrat, that said “States at war with the Federal government” and was in California, would you assume he was a racist? I wouldn’t think so. Yet we find that using this reference to war is not anything unique to Perry (or republicans for that matter). Rather, it was the same heated rhetoric that politicians always use.

Then the issue of South Carolina. Perry has been calling this issue a war for a while now, and NOT JUST IN SOUTH CAROLINA. The fact that he was in South Carolina had nothing to do with his rhetoric. He was in South Carolina because there was an election there coming up. If he had been asked this same question, any other day, in any other state, the rhetoric is likely to be the same.

I for one, do not like Perry. Nor am I a Republican. Nor do I necessarily support these laws. What I do care about is carelessly labeling people racist because they support a certain law or are a part of a certain party.

Which leads to my last concern, which is labeling an entire party as “Racist”, this not coming from you JMR, but from others in the forum. I think it’s worth noting that the fact that Southern Democrats opposed the Republican Party but then switched is a good indication the name of the party you adhere to doesn’t necessarily make you a racist. They were racist as democrats, and racist as Republicans. What does this mean? A person can be racist regardless of their party.

As far as Voter I.D. laws go, I don’t think that they’re inherently racist, but that there is a caution that needs to be taken to avoid reintroducing poll taxes used in the South. In some states (Texas for example) it’s free to get a voter I.D. that never expires. The other issue though is Birth Certificates, which it costs a fee to acquire. This doesn’t make sense to me. I can get a free ID card but not birth certificate.

I think that the purpose of the law is to protect the integrity of the election, not to keep minorities from voting. Yet we’re faced with unintended consequences and complications. IF this law were to be in place, it should be free to obtain an ID, just as it is free to register to vote.

But, as it stands, the integrity of the election is at enough danger to constitute risking excluding minorities from their right to vote.

“Many people in disenfranchised social groups don’t have state IDs; their political expression is important, but under suggested legislation their votes would be nullified.”

Even if we grant that assertion for the sake of argument, why shouldn’t they assume a minimal responsibility for acquiring proper ID–just like other voters do? Why do you have such condescending standards for minorities?

“Pointing out examples of black Americans in government doesn’t mean that there aren’t substantial issues facing minority communities today. (I don’t like the word ‘minority,’ but for the sake of this argument I think we all understand its meaning). Black Americans and hispanic Americans still face strong degrees of animosity from many people in America; though this isn’t institutionalized in the government necessarily, it’s still there.”

i) How is that relevant to photo ID?

ii) Racial tensions aren’t limited to white/black or white/latino relations. There are racial tensions between various ethnic groups in America. You need to break out of your quaint, Jim Crow paradigm. For instance, successful Asian-American students are discriminated against in the admissions process to make room for less academically qualified minority applicants.

“Many people in disenfranchised social groups don’t have state IDs; their political expression is important, but under suggested legislation their votes would be nullified.”

Voter fraud disenfranchises legal minority voters. Their legally cast votes are nullified by illegally cast votes.

So then you’re against laws and regulations requiring people to show proper ID in order to cast a vote, is that right?

Thank you for commenting.

My limited points as a federalist myself was the context of the response was an obvious dog-whistle to our lesser angels.

Can you defend Perry’s statements in context?

Of course, being for states rights is not racism.
Of course, most of what was said was not racist in and of itself.

But Perry said what he said in Charleston to a question on voting rights on MLK Day. Perry has made CSA “jokes” about Texas leaving the union before.

These are inappropriate dog-whistles to racists that do exist.

Yes?

Why not if not?

John Mark

Pointing out examples of black Americans in government doesn’t mean that there aren’t substantial issues facing minority communities today. (I don’t like the word “minority,” but for the sake of this argument I think we all understand its meaning). Black Americans and hispanic Americans still face strong degrees of animosity from many people in America; though this isn’t institutionalized in the government necessarily, it’s still there.

Also TUAD, the insinuation that the only people afraid to show ID are illegal immigrants is quite offensive. Yes, it’s obviously true that those who have come into this country illegally will be more wary to show any form of ID, but JMR’s point isn’t limited to just them. Many people in disenfranchised social groups don’t have state IDs; their political expression is important, but under suggested legislation their votes would be nullified. A good article on this can be seen here: http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2012/20120118081645.aspx

Thousands of Americans, notably felons and ex-felons, already have the vote unjustly deprived of them through unfortunate legal means. We should be trying to encourage democracy, not discourage it.

When Republicans opposed slavery and sought minority rights, Southerners were by and large not Republican. However, once the Democratic party started pushing for civil rights legislation, the Southerners switched parties. Unfortunately today we see the Republican party pandering to the traditional Southern attitudes, especially with the primaries heading southward.

My point here, if you missed it, was that on the race issue both parties have their strengths and their weaknesses, and that talking about states’ right in a time when they are under attack is not racist.

As far as I know, Gingrich did not repudiate Perry’s comments. And Perry dropped out of the race and endorsed Gingrich.

I thought Perry would have endorsed Santorum, but he chose Gingrich.

In other words, you’re not going to get a good guy/bad guy outcome if you’re looking for a racist political party. Both sides have their strengths and their weaknesses. But clearly neither Perry nor Gingrich are racists. They talk about states’ rights no matter to what states their campaigns take them. To talk about states’ rights in an era when those rights are under siege by the federal government is not racist, no matter where you address it.