Two events today which are basically so over-the-top they make my head spin:
1. Representative Eric Cantor apparently has forgotten all of the U.S. history he learned in high school and college. Today he endorsed a constitutional amendment that would allow a vote of 2/3 of the state legislatures to veto Federal legislation. This, along with repeal of the 17th Amendment (having U.S. Senators elected by popular vote rather than by the vote of the state legislatures) are awful procedural ideas. The first would basically create chaos in the Federal system and significantly undermine the effectiveness and authority of Congress. The second is undemocratic and would return the U.S. Senate to the bad old days when Senators were creatures of their state's corrupt state legislatures. (By the way, my sense is that state legislatures today are only marginally improved over those bad old days. They are still filled with corrupt, venal and often stupid people, easily corruptible and underpaid. How many people even know who their state legislators are?)
These "back to the states" concepts seem to be getting a lot more attention these days. They seem to be a poorly-thought out (to put it mildly) response to a perceived problem. Republicans don't like that the Democrats had a majority in Congress and, therefore, passed legislation favored by Democrats and opposed by REpublicans. So, the response of Cantor and friends is not the obvious "just work to elect more Republicans", but rather, let's change how we elect Senators and who gets to make laws". In other words, since Republicans didn't win a majority, let's change how its all done. Absolutely, breathtakingly stupid.
2. Representative Steve King of Iowa has done all of us the valuable service of finally letting down the guard and exposing the racism that underlies some of the contemporary dissatisfaction on the right. In opposing a bill to fund the settlement of a discrimination lawsuit brought by black farmers against the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, King says:
"Figure this out, Madame Speaker: We have a very, very urban Senator, Barack Obama, who has decided he's going to run for president, and what does he do? He introduces legislation to create a whole new Pigford claim."
"Urban", of course, in context means "black". King clearly doesn't mean "city dweller". He has basically accused Obama of supporting this settlement because he's black. King also claims that the settlement is "slavery reparations", although it has absolutely nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with discriminatory treatment of black farmers in the post World War II period.
I like to think that I am reasonably sceptical of claims of racism. I discount allegations that the "tea party" is really about racism. I certainly think that there is an element of racism there, mixed in with and probably unseparable from a generalised fear on the part of tea partiers that the country and the culture is changing and leaving them behind. A part of that is symbolized, at least, by the election as President of a black man with a foreign-sounding name and a background very different from the typical tea partier. Yeah, there's a bit of racims there, but I don't think that's what the movement is really about.
King's statement, however, is different. I have no hesitation labelling it as "racist". He could hardly be more explicit. Now, all I really know about King is that he's a right-wing crazy. I know nothing about his background or what he might be like to socialize with. Accordingly, I don't have a clue as to what his feelings about African-Americans are or whether he could fairly be termed a racist. What I do know is that his comments today are racist. In the nearly two years of the Obama Administration, there has absolutely been nothing to evidence any intention by the President to adopt policies which favor black citizens because the President is black. For King to assert, obviously without evidence, that this is what is motivating the President, is despicable.
No comments:
Post a Comment