Why is Rice a Republican? Can she be reprogrammed?
It has always mystified me that Condoleezza Rice is a Republican. She's black, she's a woman, she's smart. (OK, I hear all you Republicans snorting and getting ready to e-mail. I will grudgingly allow there are other bright right-wingers -- but few black women Republicans, and who would sign up after the disasterous Bush White House response to Hurricane Katrina?)
It seems today was bigoted idiot coming out day at the Chicago Sun-Times. The author, Jennifer Hunter, appears to have felt the need to come out flamboyantly.
It seems so counterintuitive that Rice, a woman raised in the racially charged atmosphere of Birmingham, Ala., in the 1950s, who knew two of the girls who were killed in the church bombing there in 1963, who had to overcome latent prejudice in academia, both as a woman and as an African American, should be a parrot for George W. Bush, a man so out of touch. What has she been smoking?
Well, let's see, Jennifer. Could it be that Southern Democrats were the ones responsible for the "racially charged atmosphere" and Rice, by all accounts a reasonably intelligent person, knows that? Could it be that she knows nothing has changed and Democrats are still racists, they just sell it better?
In fact, Rice was a bona fide Democrat until 1980, when she had an epiphany after overhearing a remark by President Jimmy Carter. He said he was shocked by the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Rice, a scholar of Russian politics, was "shocked that anybody would be shocked by that," explained Nicholas Lemann in a profile of Rice for the New Yorker. Two years later she flipped to the GOP.
So what, exactly, is a bona fide Democrat? Is there a secret handshake? Do they have special tattoos they only show each other at secret meetings? Do they all get decoder rings so they can decipher the secret messages?
There's only so much fun you can have with a brain-dead twit like Miss Hunter.
Rice is not a liberal in the twenty-first century American context. She is a neo-con. That means she isn't a conservative in that same context as well. Economically, she appears to be pretty Marxist, but with sympathies toward modified free markets. That puts her in the mainstream of Democrat thought along economic lines. Socially, she appears to be moderate to slightly conservative. She is pro-abortion, but she is not sympathetic to the homosexual agenda. Along the lines of her views on the role of government, she and Bush are ideological twins. She favors affirmative action, government health care subsidies, federal involvement in education, and a whole host of other interventionist government programs. I have heard her use the term, "Social justice" on more than one occasion, so we can safely assume she favors some form of government redistribution of wealth.
At one time, I wondered why Rice was a Republican, myself. However, the transformation of the GOP is now complete and Rice represents the Republican archetype. And for the record, Jennifer dear, snotty, condescending libs like you who post their snarky little screeds for the world to see are one of the main reasons Rice and people like her are no longer Democrats.
It seems today was bigoted idiot coming out day at the Chicago Sun-Times. The author, Jennifer Hunter, appears to have felt the need to come out flamboyantly.
It seems so counterintuitive that Rice, a woman raised in the racially charged atmosphere of Birmingham, Ala., in the 1950s, who knew two of the girls who were killed in the church bombing there in 1963, who had to overcome latent prejudice in academia, both as a woman and as an African American, should be a parrot for George W. Bush, a man so out of touch. What has she been smoking?
Well, let's see, Jennifer. Could it be that Southern Democrats were the ones responsible for the "racially charged atmosphere" and Rice, by all accounts a reasonably intelligent person, knows that? Could it be that she knows nothing has changed and Democrats are still racists, they just sell it better?
In fact, Rice was a bona fide Democrat until 1980, when she had an epiphany after overhearing a remark by President Jimmy Carter. He said he was shocked by the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Rice, a scholar of Russian politics, was "shocked that anybody would be shocked by that," explained Nicholas Lemann in a profile of Rice for the New Yorker. Two years later she flipped to the GOP.
So what, exactly, is a bona fide Democrat? Is there a secret handshake? Do they have special tattoos they only show each other at secret meetings? Do they all get decoder rings so they can decipher the secret messages?
There's only so much fun you can have with a brain-dead twit like Miss Hunter.
Rice is not a liberal in the twenty-first century American context. She is a neo-con. That means she isn't a conservative in that same context as well. Economically, she appears to be pretty Marxist, but with sympathies toward modified free markets. That puts her in the mainstream of Democrat thought along economic lines. Socially, she appears to be moderate to slightly conservative. She is pro-abortion, but she is not sympathetic to the homosexual agenda. Along the lines of her views on the role of government, she and Bush are ideological twins. She favors affirmative action, government health care subsidies, federal involvement in education, and a whole host of other interventionist government programs. I have heard her use the term, "Social justice" on more than one occasion, so we can safely assume she favors some form of government redistribution of wealth.
At one time, I wondered why Rice was a Republican, myself. However, the transformation of the GOP is now complete and Rice represents the Republican archetype. And for the record, Jennifer dear, snotty, condescending libs like you who post their snarky little screeds for the world to see are one of the main reasons Rice and people like her are no longer Democrats.
posted by Anonymous | 9:00 AM
1 Comments:
I too was a democrat once upon a time in the West (& Midwest). I did not change or take the same road Ms. Rice took, but I've seen some of what she sees. I don't doubt that she still strives for her ideals and goals but I think she has seen a better way to get there, as I have. I left the Democrat party and became an independent first - didn't like Watergate, etc. I was involved with Caesar Chavez's issues, Jessie Jackson's causes and was trainned by feminist groups (I worked in the Domestic Violence field in conjunction with a Battered women's shelter for many years). Voted for Senator McGovern.
Then I saw that though things had improved or started to, no credit for improvement has been given for any success either by feminists, minorities and Democrat party - I've disliked the distain the Democrat party has had for religion, churches and the military even though churches were very involved in the civil rights movement in the 60s. I've disliked the party for it's negative comments of Ms. Rice, Judge Thomas, and minorities running for public office who are Republican. The party presented itself for being for the little guy, for women and for minorities but you must believe as they do or your status does not count.
I still work to the ends that I had years ago - social justice, equal treatments under the law, help for the poor, opportunities for advancement, education available for all, health care for all as we can, etc. What I have changed is what I think it takes to get these things. What I've seen is that Republican thought gives us more of more of these things than other ways of thinking. No one way or no one program is the perfect program. The ways we deal with problems need to change as needs change, society change and what I hear today is the 60s verbage and focus on issues as if no progress has been made. The same old same old. I myself have been working on the eduation component to give students and parents ways to help more students finish school and get a higher education in today's world. Put the responsibility back in the hands of those who can do something about it - student and parent - www.slssystem.com
I still believe institutions need to be changed or addressed but too much time with the institution and it takes too long for people to be helped. If there is a rock on the road, of course it needs to be moved and so you call officials who can move it, but you also find a way around it and help others see ways around it until its gone.
Every group will have its blind side, limitations and focus. I just decided to trust certain principles Republicans use even when I don't agree with where the party is going, has done or any individual from that group. I started looking at the party after Ronald Regan's first term but did not become a Republican until Clinton's second term. I suppose it all depends on who you want to trust and you can believe. I wanted to find what works.
Rice saw possibilities and so did I. I'm a minority and do have higher education. Business and even religion teach that what you beleive you can perceive and you can achieve. The beliefs are what drive actions toward goals. We have more people in higher tax brackets now than before, the income level that used to be considered rich only 10 years ago. More people participate in the American Dream - own a business, own a home, get higher education, etc. Things have improved though more can be done.
I've learned that though 2 sides are concerned about the same issues they may have different ways to get there. It depends on what you lead with - help businesses create more jobs which can get more people off of government aide; or help people by providing more government aide hoping they will then sustain themselves by getting a job, which may or may not be there. We want to help the poor but where do we start. We may need to do both but with which do we begin. Where do we want to take a chance and what idea do we want to give the benefit of the doubt to.
I think Condoleezza realized some of the same things. I think I saw some of the same as she saw and though we traveled different paths, conclusions were similar. The fact that there are not as many minorities in the Republican party is an interesting event in history (since the Republican party was the party of Lincoln who freed the slaves and many blacks were republicans up until about the 1960s). Republicans are proud of being USA citizens and proud of the country. Most Democrats I've met are either not proud of the USA, are proud but say 'yes, but..." or have more negative to say than anything positive. They sound too much like socialist, communist or other groups that work against our principles. Maybe it's who I've hung around with over the years. I know not all Democrats are thus. When your views are not listened to, you feel like you are being pushed out - then you find someone who not only listens to you but may agree with you on enough issues. Thus change.
Post a Comment
<< Home