<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Howard Dean and the 1850s: Convenient Racial Revisionism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/17/howard-dean-and-the-1850s-convenient-racial-revisionism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/17/howard-dean-and-the-1850s-convenient-racial-revisionism/</link>
	<description>Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Mulligan</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/17/howard-dean-and-the-1850s-convenient-racial-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-71605</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Mulligan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 06:39:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/17/howard-dean-and-the-1850s-convenient-racial-revisionism/#comment-71605</guid>
		<description>Raymond has a great point. Opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was bad legislation that has ultimately proven to be even more destructive than it&#039;s opponents imagined it could be is, after all, exactly the same as vehemently supporting slavery as a party platform.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Raymond has a great point. Opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was bad legislation that has ultimately proven to be even more destructive than it&#8217;s opponents imagined it could be is, after all, exactly the same as vehemently supporting slavery as a party platform.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raymond Ingles</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/17/howard-dean-and-the-1850s-convenient-racial-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-71571</link>
		<dc:creator>Raymond Ingles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:45:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/17/howard-dean-and-the-1850s-convenient-racial-revisionism/#comment-71571</guid>
		<description>A few days ago I submitted a comment that quoted some of William F. Buckley&#039;s words from the (considerably more recent) &lt;i&gt;19&lt;/i&gt;50&#039;s relevant to the article&#039;s topic, but apparently they were so inflammatory that they were not approved. Certainly I agree that Democratic candidates shouldn&#039;t &quot;get a pass&quot; on these issues (and pointing out their actual past is &lt;i&gt;definitely&lt;/i&gt; fair game), but despite the origins of the parties, not that long ago they &lt;i&gt;did&lt;/i&gt;, in fact, switch sides on the issue, and the Republican party was on the wrong side of history for a while.

It&#039;s not surprising that there&#039;s lingering suspicion on this topic, though I certainly don&#039;t believe the large majority of today&#039;s Republicans think anything like their predecessors a few decades ago. Buckley himself never totally disavowed his early statements but did come to recognize many of his errors on these lines. But there are still minority voters today who remember the 1950s and 1960s, and not nearly as many who remember the 1850s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A few days ago I submitted a comment that quoted some of William F. Buckley&#8217;s words from the (considerably more recent) <i>19</i>50&#8242;s relevant to the article&#8217;s topic, but apparently they were so inflammatory that they were not approved. Certainly I agree that Democratic candidates shouldn&#8217;t &#8220;get a pass&#8221; on these issues (and pointing out their actual past is <i>definitely</i> fair game), but despite the origins of the parties, not that long ago they <i>did</i>, in fact, switch sides on the issue, and the Republican party was on the wrong side of history for a while.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not surprising that there&#8217;s lingering suspicion on this topic, though I certainly don&#8217;t believe the large majority of today&#8217;s Republicans think anything like their predecessors a few decades ago. Buckley himself never totally disavowed his early statements but did come to recognize many of his errors on these lines. But there are still minority voters today who remember the 1950s and 1960s, and not nearly as many who remember the 1850s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raymond Ingles</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/17/howard-dean-and-the-1850s-convenient-racial-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-71562</link>
		<dc:creator>Raymond Ingles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/17/howard-dean-and-the-1850s-convenient-racial-revisionism/#comment-71562</guid>
		<description>Oh, there&#039;s plenty of &#039;racial&#039; blame to go around. If Dean had kept his comment entirely on the (considerably more recent) 1950s he&#039;d have been on much safer ground. Consider this editorial in William F. Buckley&#039;s National Review from 1957: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/001467.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;In some parts of the South, the White community merely intends to prevail on any issue on which there is corporate disagreement between Negro and White. The White community will take whatever measures are necessary to make certain that it has its way...The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race... National Review believes that the South&#039;s premises are correct.&lt;/a&gt;

The more interesting question - one not really touched upon here - is what party, if any, would actually be most reasonable for &#039;minorities&#039; to vote for. I quite agree that the “Republican/conservative”=racist equation is indeed false as a general principle, of course, but that doesn&#039;t automatically mean that Republican policies would be the best choices from a &#039;minority&#039; perspective. That being said, I certainly agree that the Democratic party shouldn&#039;t &quot;get a pass&quot; on such issues, either - which was the main thrust of the essay, I just think it wasn&#039;t argued as strongly as it could have been.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, there&#8217;s plenty of &#8216;racial&#8217; blame to go around. If Dean had kept his comment entirely on the (considerably more recent) 1950s he&#8217;d have been on much safer ground. Consider this editorial in William F. Buckley&#8217;s National Review from 1957: <a href="http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/001467.html" rel="nofollow">In some parts of the South, the White community merely intends to prevail on any issue on which there is corporate disagreement between Negro and White. The White community will take whatever measures are necessary to make certain that it has its way&#8230;The central question that emerges&#8211;and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal&#8211;is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes&#8211;the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race&#8230; National Review believes that the South&#8217;s premises are correct.</a></p>
<p>The more interesting question &#8211; one not really touched upon here &#8211; is what party, if any, would actually be most reasonable for &#8216;minorities&#8217; to vote for. I quite agree that the “Republican/conservative”=racist equation is indeed false as a general principle, of course, but that doesn&#8217;t automatically mean that Republican policies would be the best choices from a &#8216;minority&#8217; perspective. That being said, I certainly agree that the Democratic party shouldn&#8217;t &#8220;get a pass&#8221; on such issues, either &#8211; which was the main thrust of the essay, I just think it wasn&#8217;t argued as strongly as it could have been.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sedonaman</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/17/howard-dean-and-the-1850s-convenient-racial-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-71561</link>
		<dc:creator>sedonaman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:54:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/17/howard-dean-and-the-1850s-convenient-racial-revisionism/#comment-71561</guid>
		<description>Countering ignorance with the facts is a waste of time when ignorance is the preferred state.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Countering ignorance with the facts is a waste of time when ignorance is the preferred state.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

