ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Racists and Bad Analogies

One of the absolutely strangest elements of modern American conservatism is the extraordinary level of hypersensitivity it exhibits about the idea that any white people might be racists. The view is basically that while, yes, in 1964 racism might have been a problem, the moment the Civil Rights Act passed over loud and persistent conservative objections it suddenly became the case that the only real race problem in America is liberals making false allegations of racism. The reality, of course, is that the Civil Rights Act was a controversial measure precisely because in 1964 an awful lot of Americans—and an especially large share of white southerners—were white supremacists. And those people didn’t suddenly vanish.

At any rate, of all the dumb pushback I got from the right the most terrifying was this from William Jacobsen, who’s apparently a professor at a prestigious university and thus ought to be able to deploy some rudimentary logic:

1947 was the year in which the color barrier was broken in Major League Baseball. Prior to Jackie Robinson taking the field, MLB (or whatever it was called at the time) was segregated. Actually, it was more than segregated, it excluded blacks completely.

Using the logic of Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress, who is having his 15 minutes of race card fame, anyone who expresses any measure of praise for the pre-1947 Yankees necessarily would be “expressing affection for a White Supremacist” organization. It would not matter that the praise was for the Yankees’ baseball skills; any expression of anything less than complete condemnation of the Yankees necessarily evidences tolerance for racism because the Yankees were part of a racist system.

This is absolutely insane. A find it difficult to believe that Cornell Law School is employing someone stupid enough to advance this argument, but I know that conservatives don’t like it when you impugn their level of racial enlightenment, so I’ll just take it as a given that Jacobsen is an idiot. Obviously, though, the difference is that the organization whose activities Barbour was praising was an organization founded in order to maintain a white supremacist political order. The Citizens’ Councils weren’t just organizations that happened to be all-white during a period of white supremacist ascendancy. According to the Association of Citizens’ Councils pamphlet “Why Does Your Community Need a Citizens’ Council?”:

Maybe your community has had no racial problems! This may be true; however, you may not have a fire, yet you maintain a fire department. You can depend on one thing: The NAACP (National Association for the Agitation of Colored People), aided by alien influences, bloc vote seeking politicians and left-wing do-gooders, will see that you have a problem in the near future.

The Citizens’ Council is the South’s answer to the mongrelizers. We will not be integrated. We are proud of our white blood and our white heritage of sixty centuries.

This was an organization dedicated to maintaining white supremacy and to combatting the civil rights movement. Unlike the KKK, they believed in doing this in a moderate, non-violent way. And Haley Barbour was praising their moderate approach. Which is fine, I’m all for moderation and non-violence, but it was a moderate non-violent approach to maintaining white supremacy. When I praise non-violence in the context of the civil rights era, my preferred example involved Martin Luther King, Junior. But then, I’ve always been a Mets fan.

Climate Progress

Myth vs. Fact: Sustainability and the Holidays

You may need to reuse your fake Christmas tree 20 times (!) before its climate impact is lower than that of a real tree

Tuesday’s total eclipse of the moon happened to coincide with the 2010 winter solstice. This is a combined rarity that has only happened once in the past 2,000 years. This singular kickoff to winter indubitably merits a certain amount of attention paid to staying green in this year’s season of white. You may think that hanging a Christmas pickle on your tree does the trick, but there are plenty of other more effective ways to stay green this winter season.  Test your knowledge below with these five myth-busting winter wonders in this a CAP cross-post.

Myth #1: Faux-fir trees are immortal and therefore unquestionably green.

Read more

Politics

Despite Apology, Target Maintained Political Donations To Anti-Gay Candidates

Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel


This past summer, Target became embroiled in a fierce political controversy when it was revealed that the retail giant was using corporate funds to support anti-gay gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. Target gave $150,000 to a Republican political group that ran ads in support of Emmer’s candidacy.

Because Target had earned a reputation of being a progressive leader among its corporate competitors — for instance, the company extends domestic-partner benefits to gay and lesbian employees — the revelation of the company’s political giving came as a surprise and spurred calls for a boycott. In a few short days, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel apologized in a letter to his employees:

While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry. [...]

Going forward, we will soon begin a strategic review and analysis of our decision-making process for financial contributions in the public policy arena. And later this fall, Target will take a leadership role in bringing together a group of companies and partner organizations for a dialogue focused on diversity and inclusion in the workplace, including GLBT issues.

But as new FEC records indicate that, despite Steinhafel’s apology, Target maintained its corporate contributions to right-wing, anti-gay candidates. After Steinhafel’s written apology, Target’s Political Action Committee “recorded $41,200 in federal election activity. Of that total, $31,200 went to anti-gay rights politicians or PACs supporting those candidates.”

One of the biggest recipients of Target’s cash was Republican lawmaker John Kline, who has voted against prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation, against treated anti-gay violence as a hate crime, and in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The Human Rights Campaign has given him a zero rating in terms of support for GLBT issues.”

Target also supported Erik Paulsen, “a consistent opponent of gay marriage. He voted against repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and against workplace anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation.”

Target also gave support to a range of other anti-gay candidates, including Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Dave Camp (R-MI), Dave Reichert (D-WA), David Dreier (R-CA), Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Sen.-elect Rob Portman (R-OH). The Awl’s Abe Sauer reports, “We asked Target to explain these donations. They chose not to provide any answers.”

While Target’s PAC also gave small amounts to pro-gay politicians, including Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), it’s clear that even after the political controversy erupted Target’s behavior did not change.

Yglesias

Alternate Routes to Senate Reform

Senator Jeff Merkley has laid out the most realistic vision of reforming the US Senate that I’ve seen. But I do think it’s worth expanding the scope of concepts under consideration.

One, the “House of Lords” scenario, would involve a grand bargain. On the one hand, the current members of the US Senate would agree to reconstitute itself as a basically powerless symbolic institution. But in exchange, we would eliminate the elections. Instead, current members of the Senate would acquire hereditary seats (including salary, travel stipend, staff budget, etc.) that their families could enjoy indefinitely. That seems like a win-win to me.

Another alternative, the “Mirror Universe” scenario, would also involve life-tenure in the seats. But members of any given state’s House delegation would be authorized to challenge incumbent senators to a dual to the death. If the incumbent dies, the challenger takes his place. It’s hard to see the practical benefits of this system, but it would at least be more entertaining than current filibusters.

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up