Conservatives Smear Liberals On Voting Act: 'Race Obsessed', 'Race-Hucksters'

Conservative pundits celebrate end of Voting Right's Act by calling liberals race baiting hucksters. Yikes!

up

Andrew McCarthy: This is a great success story. You'd have to be a progressive to hate this kind of progress, it's the only way you could explain it. And the people who seem to hate it are the movement progressives and the race hucksters because this is the moment, I think appropriately, that the Supreme Court took to recognize this achievement of American society in overcoming this form of institutional racism and instead of celebrating it, the people who depend on this kind of demagoguery screaming bloody murder.

Did you know that the Supreme Court was actually celebrating America by basically gutting the VRA on 6/26/13? I think it's being canonized by FOX News and soon will be made a national holiday if the NRO has its way. Conservatives are not ashamed that their movement has been aligned and framed by racism ever since it began. Their leader, William F. Buckley covered his magazine (NRO) in wall to wall race-baiting from the beginning. Since the fifties have long passed, they have shifted their tactics into decreeing that racism is dead and it's progressives who are perpetuating the myth in America.

The NRO's Andrew McCarthy is a leading proponent of this view and FOX News was all too happy to funnel his ideas to their masses.

Megyn: ....many on the left are outraged at that the court's decision which we're are going ot get into in a minute but is that outrage justified?
--
Megyn: What actually happened?

McCarthy: What happened was the Supreme Court recognized that the institutional systematic race based discrimination and disenfranchisement of voters that was the impetuous for the civil right's act or for the VRA in 1965 has long ago passed in the dustbin of history and this particular provision, at the time it was enacted was recognized by both the court and even the congress that enacted it of being a very dubious constitutionality

McCarthy says that the formula and the idea of a VRA was constitutionally problematic without addressing the actual problem of racism, but anyway...

McCarthy: Once the profound evil was remedied the idea was that we were going to go back to square one...

Megyn: The actual normal in the country which is states rights and the feds not interfering with states rights.

McCarthy: Right

Megyn: ...and the feds not interfering with states rights.

Ahhhh, the evil is dead. Long live...er... Exactly when was the evil of racism killed? Did you catch Ronald Reagan 'states rights' racist talking point, which was used to swing the south against the Democratic party after LBJ passed the VRA in 1965? They never let that one go.

McCarthy: Which is why, when Congress enacted this in the first instance they said five years, that's what they thought this would take, well you do the math.

I'll do the math for Andrew. It's taken a tad longer to combat and remedy racism in America than just five years. Most of America would say that while yes, it's certainly not as bad as in 1965, we still are not close to a real death of that evil and he knows it. Please pass the radiator fluid.

Megyn: Now let me ask you about what we see here on the left. This outrage because you have a great column up today on the NRO which talks about how you believe the left, they are race obsessed in their narrative and the need to perpetuate this narrative that this is racist and that this is the right trying to ignore the rights of blacks and others.

McCarthy: This is a great success story, You'd have to be a progressive to hate this kind of progress, it's the only way you could explain it. And the people who seem to hate it are the movement progressives and the race hucksters because this is the moment, I think appropriately that the supreme court took to recognize achievement of American society in overcoming this form of institutional racism and instead of celebrating it, the people who depend on this kind of demagoguery screaming bloody murder.

A type of excuse the cons are making to stamp out the VRA is the one McCarthy wrote about in the NRO:

In the starkest example, Mississippi in 1965 had a black registration rate of less than 7 percent, versus nearly 70 percent for whites; by 2004, the black rate was 76 percent — about 4 percent higher than the white rate. Simultaneously, the Shelbymajority noted that there has been a 1,000 percent increase in the number of black officials elected in the six states originally covered by the act.

The only reason we have these numbers today is because of the VRA. But you know, it worked so well so let's just throw it in the garbage and be done with it. That's his logic. Well, as soon as the Supremes struck down section 4, Texas immediately bragged that it would implement a Voter ID bill.

The Supreme Court has thrown out lower court rulings that blocked a Texas voter identification law and the state's political redistricting plans as discriminatory.

The court's action Thursday was a predictable result of its major ruling two days earlier that effectively ended the federal government's strict supervision of elections in Texas and other states with a history of discrimination in voting.

Now that's true progress, isn't it? How can fools like McCarthy look into the camera and lie so easily after America has been battling a barrage of voter ID laws that states have been implementing to bypass the VRA and disenfranchise minorities ever since George Bush took office?

Charles Krauthammer shared the same opinion with this buffoon on Bret Baier's show the day the verdict came down.

Krauthammer: It's a dagger in the heart of a bill that has succeeded. Its time has come and gone. This is a classic case of reactionary liberalism, hanging on to all the successes of the last century without recognizing that conditions are radically different and some things have to change.

By the way, here's a little refresher from Joan Walsh in the racism that Buckley promoted. Racism and the National Review

Although founder William F. Buckley is widely credited with driving John Birch Society extremists out of the conservative movement, he made his own contributions to the ugly coarsening of American politics on the issue of race. He and his magazine defended segregation and white supremacy in the South (though he later apologized), while in the North, he played a leading role in making the issue of rising crime both racial and political – with arguments and tactics still being used in the Trayvon Martin case today.


The year was 1957:

In 1957, Buckley's National Review came out squarely on the side of the "civilized" white minority in whatever portions of the South where whites were outnumbered by blacks. It's a remarkable piece of writing that starts off rather slowly, but gathers steam as it rolls along, full of the characteristic tangle of asides, lies and appeals to higher virtue. (Aristotle aveered that masters knew their slaves' desires better than the slaves themselves--such knowledge was a part of their superior virtue.)Thus, the clarion call, where the editorial really hits its stride:

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

The editorial was unsigned, but it's widely assumed that Buckley wrote it--it certainly soundslike him--and if not, he most certainly approved it.So, without further ado--drawing on the version that Brad DeLong published on his blog in recognition of the National Review's 50th Anniversary in 2005--the editorial in its entirety begins on the flip, followed by a brief commentary.

(H/T Heather for the video)

About John Amato

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.