In two articles I could’ve predicted were coming this week Frum Forum worries that Rand Paul will turn minorities away from the Republican Party while Paul Gottfried denounces Republicans for worrying about such a possibility and kissing up to Martin Luther King.

This got me to wondering if pandering to nonwhites on a large scale ever works.  I checked the state by state exit polls of 2008 Senate races to see whether any Republicans were able to capture the all elusive black vote.  Using Senate races is better than presidential election data, where it’s the same person in each state.  Having a wide variety of characters helps us determine whether there’s any candidate or election strategy out there which can cross the racial divide.  Here are the results, going from most to least popular GOP candidates among African-Americans.

Tennessee-Alexander 26%
Kentucky- McConnell 13%
South Carolina-Graham 13% 
New Jersey-Zimmer 13%
Iowa-Reed 10% 
Alabama-Sessions 8%
Texas-Cornyn 8%
Virginia-Gilmore 7%
Mississippi-Cochran 6%
Michigan- Hoogendyk 5%
Georgia-Chambliss 4%
Delaware-O’Donnell 3%
Illinois-Sauerberg 2%
Louisiana-Kennedy 2%
North Carolina-Dole 1%

The first and most obvious question we have to ask is, what did Lamar Alexander do?  His popularity is based on his winning over black women, who were nine percent of the electorate in his state and gave him 30% support.  Black males were only two percent of the Tennessee voting public, and a little algebra tells us that they probably voted around eight percent for Alexander, though CNN apparently didn’t think the sample was big enough to give us any numbers for them.

The New York Times noted Alexander’s success about a week after the 2008 election, telling us that the Senator “had a record of appointing blacks to government and education positions.”  He wasn’t shy in letting the voters know it either, as this ad demonstrates.

One local blogger called the message “After You Vote For Barack Obama, Vote Lamar.”  Alexander also secured the endorsement of the black mayor of Memphis.  It’s worth pointing out too that the Republican was a two term governor and incumbent, giving him all the name recognition one could hope for.

So if a Republican can somehow get liberal black Democrats to vouch for him, appoint a lot of blacks to high places, be the most well known state politician and run against a weak opponent he can sometimes get a massive quarter of the African-American vote.  The question is whether they can do that without demoralizing significant parts of the much larger white electorate.

Update: A commentator writes "May I point out that 'Lamar Alexander' sounds very plausibly like a typical black name?"

I hadn't thought of this.  Imagine the typical Memphis voter hearing all these black voices on the radio praising "our boy Lamar" and all he's done for the community.  It's certainly plausible that many of them thought that he might be "one of us," and not just politically.  I must confess that this certainly works against my name recognition theory, but polls tell us that more than half of Americans can't name their Senators.  I suspect governors are better known, but Alexander was in that position a long time ago.

I'm shocked to hear about Rand Paul's recent caving-in to the liberal-neocon establishment. From the evidence it would seem that our minimal-government senatorial candidate from Kentucky regrets he could not have marched with MLK during the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s. Never mind the fact that vocal opposition to King and to both his tactics and rhetoric extended from National Review (when it was still a recognizably conservative publication) to the New York Times, and from WFB to Will Herberg, and Harry Jaffa. We are now supposed to bow down before all the authorized Civil Rights Icons, and this is especially true for Republicans, whose electoral support among blacks since they began their ritualistic groveling has shrunk from about 10 to two percent. With a little more kowtowing, the GOP and Rand Paul may succeed in driving the numbers even lower.

As for Rand Paul's comment that set off the media hysteria, it was bland enough to have been ignored, if GOP magnates and civil rights leaders had not weighed in. Does Congressman (and House Minority Leader) John Boehner honestly believe that Paul's failure to back every jot in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including the enforcement of non-discrimination in accommodations in Title I, would cause a mass defection of his otherwise likely voters to the opposition? Will Paul's share of the black vote now shrink because of his seemingly tactless reservation about one title in the Civil Rights Act? How the hell can the GOP get "government off our backs," if Title I and the agency it requires for its enforcement legitimate constant government incursions into the workplace?

A few people have written about how they think Rand Paul should’ve handled his appearance on Rachel Maddow and other similar interviews. Here’s Christopher Donovan’s way of defending freedom of association.

Robert, the Civil Rights Act wasn’t about expanding rights, it was about taking them away — from Whites. Everyone’s got a right to decide whom they’ll associate with, and whom they won’t. This is probably the most fundamental right. The government has no business dictating who our associates will be. This may be awkward and painful at times, but that’s life. How would you feel if the government forced you to host three Ku Klux Klansmen at your condo in D.C.?

When I was watching the Maddow video I thought of how cool it would be if Paul said “What if government decided that there wasn’t enough integration in our personal lives too? Of my three children, do you think one should be forced to take a black spouse?” though I certainly didn’t expect it. To a libertarian both a business and a home are private property that government must respect; unfortunately we must face the fact that there’s a sharp difference in most people’s minds. Even Americans who own their own businesses feel there’s a distinction between where they work and where they eat, sleep, socialize and raise their families. So comparing the Civil Rights Act to mandatory intermarriage or being forced to hang out with Klansmen isn’t going to work.

That being said, I do think that there are politically smart ways not to back down. How about this

It’s funny that the media has been going after me for defending freedom of association when they don’t question any politicians who advocate affirmative action about those beliefs. If you truly believe that all people should be treated equally, how does one advocate not the freedom to discriminate, but mandatory discrimination? If a major corporation or university came out and said “We want to hire the best person for each job or admit only the best students by some kind of race blind criteria,” that would for all practical purposes be illegal. Do you think that’s right? Why don’t you question Speaker Pelosi, President Obama or my opponent about their views on affirmative action? I have made ending affirmative action a central part of my platform. Anybody who defends the practice has no right lecturing me or any American on the evils of racial discrimination.

This is a political winner, allows one to still be a libertarian and even lets the politician take a "more anti-racist than thou" posture.  I don't see the downside.   Since no one ever does this, I must be missing something. But what?

Since taking your children away from you for seven hours a day to be brainwashed with multicultural propaganda hasn't yet gotten them to say the right things early enough, it's time to shame the parents. 



Anti-racists shouldn't worry too much though, for by the time they're as old as the kids in this video TV and public education have done their job.  

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
White in America - The Children
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The news of Rand Paul's big primary win (in a randslide) was certainly positive, tempered by his unclear foreign policy message. Now that he finds himself in the general election, the media is starting to ask questions about his views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Politico reports on his waffling on the CRA:

Moving from the Republican Primary to the general election means, for Rand Paul, addressing a broader set of issues than the anti-tax, anti-spending focus of his campaign.

And while he's answered this question before, I'm not sure he's going to be able to get away with an evasive response to a question today on whether he would have voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination in public places and in the workplace.

Paul has suggested in the past -- and been attacked for suggesting -- that the federal government has no place regulating private business decisions, even on issues like race and accomodations for the disabled, and was pressed on the question -- three times -- on NPR just now:

"What I've always said is, I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would have -- if I was alive at the time, I think -- had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, ad I see no place in our soc for institutional racism," he said in response to a first question about the act.

"You woul have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?" asked an interviewer.

"I think it's confusing in a lot of cases in what's actually in the Civil Rights Case (sic)," Paul replied. "A lot of things that were actually in the bill I'm actually in favor of I'm in favor of -- everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights -- and indeed the truth is, I haven't read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I'm going to vote for the Civil Rights Act."

Paul explains his position further on the CRA at the one hour mark of this video interview with the editors of the Louisville Courier-Journal. He says he supports the parts of the bill that fought discrimination in the public arena and on public property, but disagrees with telling private business owners what to do. He then goes on a bit of a rant about his admiration for Martin Luther King Jr., and explains how he gets emotional when watching his speeches.

I have no doubt we will begin to see the media paint Paul as a racist, just as they attempted to do to his father. But the reality is that Rand , despite his positives as a candidate, is riven with many of the modern multi-culti pathologies that infect political discourse. Absent from his views on the CRA is any bit of understanding about the major cultural upheaval that resulted from the Act, and absent from his views on MLK is an understanding of the racial redistribution of wealth King advocated. Instead Paul tries to paint him as some anti-government crusader. In the end, I have no doubt that Rand is telling the truth about his views on the CRA; that it merely clashes with his ideological views on private ownership.

At any rate, Rand's clash with the media on the CRA is a healthy reminder of how hard it will be for a real alt-right candidate to infiltrate the PC state.

Call it the Obama Effect.

A poll released Thursday by Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., found that 70 percent of black students ages 15 to 18 thought their standard of living would be better than their parents, compared with just 36 percent of white students.

Overall, 39 percent of respondents thought they would have a higher living standard.

Those numbers and the level of optimism among black students appeared to be closely tied to their enthusiasm for President Barack Obama, making for what some called the "Obama effect."

Asked about the president's performance, more than two-thirds of black students rated his performance as "good" or "very good," compared with 23 percent of white students. Overall, about a quarter of the students who were surveyed rated the president highly.

The mainstream believes that there are psychosocial reasons for why whites do better than blacks, among them African American being less hopeful about what they can accomplish in a society conspiring to hold them back.  Now that we find they’re more optimistic than their white counterparts, and assuming that this is a new development, will any brave blogger, writer, TV pundit, liberal activist, or professor put forth a prediction that the pesky achievement gap is going to be significantly cut within the next few years?  If so, why not?  Honest people with theories about the world make predictions consistent with those theories.  Let's see those who deny inherent race differences show how confident they are in the alternative.

If you're thinking "of course nobody would be foolish enough to think that a poll on attitudes can tell you anything about test scores," then you understand how silly theories like the stereotype threat are.

A third year female Harvard law student goes out to dinner with some friends and she reveals that she’s open to race realism.  The next day she sends out an e-mail clarifying her views.

I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.

Six months later one of the friends gets upset over something else and forwards the e-mail to the Black Students Law Association.  Madness ensues, and finally the school’s Dean sends an e-mail out apologizing and expressing regret.

Here at Harvard Law School, we are committed to preventing degradation of any individual or group, including race-based insensitivity or hostility. The particular comment in question unfortunately resonates with old and hurtful misconceptions. As an educational institution, we are especially dedicated to exposing to the light of inquiry false views about individuals or groups.

And suppressing true ones, I suppose.

Finally, the girl has a heart to heart with some affirmative-action professor and apologizes.

I wonder if the religious police in Saudi Arabia would take action if they came across a private e-mail of somebody open to the possibility that there is no God.  I would guess not.  In America, on the other hand, we don't even tolerate private dissent on the issue of black people.

And let’s not say that the religion here is “anti-racism” or “multiculturalism.”  To this day, nobody cares that The Bell Curve brought forth evidence showing that Asians were smarter than whites and whites smarter than Mestizos.  I doubt much would have happened if the girl in question sent out an e-mail wondering whether Hispanics don’t assimilate too well because of genetic factors.  People get upset when thought criminals point out that blacks are less intelligent than whites because they know it’s true.  And the differences aren’t slight or limited to IQ.  Regarding blacks, the truth simply hurts too much for a nice person with middle-class values to face.

Michael Levin in Why Race Matters theorized that perhaps blacks evolved to be more melodramatic in talking about pain because throughout their evolutionary history they needed to get the attention of members of a race that had less natural empathy.  So if an African on a pain scale of one to 10 feels a five, he’ll shout out like he’s at an eight.  Whites hear this and think he’s feeling eight and react accordingly.  At the legal blog Above the Law, an African American blogger recounts the time in his mid-20s when he called his mother to cry because somebody used the abbreviation “nig” to refer to blacks in a class outline.  Early European race theorists interpreted this kind of behavior as Africans lacking a sense of dignity, which isn’t mutually exclusive with the missed signals theory.  In the end, it may simply be that this seeming shamelessness is explained fine as a byproduct of low intelligence and impulse control.   Whatever the causes of black whining may be, it's another complicating factor for those hoping to return society to sanity.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council put out this statement.

Reports today have the predominantly African American Church of God in Christ, with an estimated 6 million members, set to endorse the President's health care plan. The endorsement is to be carefully worded, to ensure that President Obama stays true to his promise that abortion will not be government funded--a condition that every single version of health care reform pushed by leading Democrats in the House and Senate fails to fulfill. 

The issue of abortion is of utmost importance in the African-American community for it is this community that has been targeted by Planned Parenthood and their ilk. Since Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973 over 13 million African-Americans children have been killed. The targeting of pro-abortion forces is highlighted when you consider that African-Americans make up only 13.5 percent of the population, yet Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute reports that of the approximately 1.21 million abortions that are performed annually in the United States, 37 percent are performed on African-American women and their unborn children. Preliminary data currently being compiled on all abortion facilities in the U.S. shows that over 20 states have abortion facilities in areas where the African-American population is 50 percent or higher. In fact in 10 states and in Washington, D.C. abortuaries are located exclusively in minority areas. If the current versions of the President's health care overhaul pass those numbers are sure to increase.