Re: Poor little Ashcroft

>>>>> "greg" == Greg Konig <[email protected]> writes:

  greg> Your first comment is certainly a fascinating one.  You may
  greg> find it hard to believe, but I like to call it when I see it.
  greg> Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.

  greg> If I am understanding your message, your argument boils down
  greg> to YOUR SUSPICION that Ashcroft is a bigot, which you confirm
  greg> with 2 general arguments, and perpetuate with lazy
  greg> association:

No, that actually wasn't my argument; the larger piece -- that
contains the bits about Ashcroft to which you've addressed yourself --
was about some racist incidents I witnessed in the South.

Ashcroft comes in because he, like a bewildering number of other high
officials (Senators, House leaders, etc.) are willing to give aid and
comfort to Souther Partisan and other neoconfederacy groups.

I note with some interest that you don't say a single word about the
rest of the piece. That's curious.

  greg> 1) He gave an interview to a magazine that espouses racist
  greg> views.  Guilt by association.  Well, that argument seems to
  greg> apply to anyone who chooses to associate themselves with
  greg> public figures or groups for political gain.  I guess every
  greg> person who has ever taken it upon themselves to meet with
  greg> Farrakhan and Sharpton are anti-semitic, and that it is up to
  greg> each of them to prove otherwise?

(Your Sharpton/Farrakhan ploy is *so* tired; for the analogy to hold
*at all*, there'd have to be a long list of important and good
accomplishments by Southern Partisan, as there clearly is with
Sharpton and Farrakhan (though Farrakhan to a much looser degree);
your willingness to conflate Sharpton and Farrakhan does nothing more
than betray your ignorance of the very important differences between
them. Your analogizing, unsuccessfully, to them betrays your ignorance
of all they good they've done. Farrakhan has said antisemitic things,
I agree. Does that erase the good that he's done? Sharpton hasn't said
antisemitic things; but he has made serious mistakes, do they erase
the good he's done? What, pray tell, are the good things Southern
Partisan has done?)

First, guilt by association isn't applicable here. I have said that I
don't know (or really care) whether Ashcroft is himself a racist; what
I have said clearly is that he *supports* those who "propagandize the
antebellum South and advocate a return to...the legal segregation of
the Jim Crow era." That's what I said.

Now, you can come back and claim that this is guilt by association,
but you're wrong. "Guilt by association" has a non-tendentious
meaning, and that is to assume something about Person A because she is
connected with Group B or Person B; and the nature of that assumption
is some kind of judgment about guilt, whether moral or political.

This isn't what I've done with Ashcroft, of course. I do two perhaps
related things:

 (1) I claim that supporting neoconfederates is *itself* morally
 wrong;

 (2) I draw a conclusion from what Ashcroft himself has said, namely,
 that he *must do more* to show the world that Lee/Jackson/Davis were
 not pursuing a 'perverted agenda'.

You are free to disagree that supporting a neoconfederate group is
morally wrong, but that doesn't make the claim 'guilt by association',
at least not in the tendentious, dismissive sense that you want.

You are also free to disagree with my interpretation of Ashcroft's
words; perhaps that interpretation is less charitable than it should
be? But to do so you have, at a minimum, to show one of two things (or
both of them): a) that my interpretation has some prima facie defect;
or, b) that some other interpretation is more plausible than mine.

You haven't done any of this.

  greg> Southern Partisan apparently and not surprisingly frequently
  greg> criticizes Lincoln, while Ashcroft considers him our finest
  greg> president.  How can that be?  

There's many reasons, I'll list only a few obvious ones:

 (1) he's epistemically blind; he should have known this but didn't,
  which surely casts a bad light on his fitness for such a demanding
  office;
 
 (2) he knew it, but decided, for whatever reason, to overlook it;

What I said was that on either basis, he has trouble.

	You just confirmed that his
  greg> praise for the magazine and statement that *he* needed to do
  greg> more was the basis for your conclusion that he supports the
  greg> slavery and/or segregation.  It's loose logic to support your
  greg> conclusion, just baseless insinuation.

I think, as I've said, that supporting neoconfederacy is 1) morally
blameworthy; I'll also add that, 2), it's a reason to vote against his
confirmation for AG. In fact, a very good reason, one of the best
reasons you could have, in my view.

  greg> 2) Although you seem to agree that states rights and slavery
  greg> are not one and the same, you deny that a leader from the
  greg> south in pre-civil war times is capable of distinguishing it.

Well, my denial of that was implicit, but sure. I think *no* Southern
leader, slave-owning or not, could defend the Southern 'way of life'
-- whether because or even in spite of states's rights -- without at
least tacitly defending slavery as *the* institution upon which the
entire economy and culture of the South was based. I believe that's as
true today as it ever was. In fact, there's some justification for the
historical judgment that states's rights is nothing but the invention
of Southern slavers and their political representatives.

Now, if you *really* want to talk about some kind of states's rights
independent of slavery -- well, as independent as it's possible to get
in American political traditions -- you go back to Federalist Papers
and to Constitutional Conventions, etc.

That's *not* what Southern Partisan is, of course.

  greg> To paraphrase what I think you are saying:  southern way of
  greg> life and states rights in that context are all about slavery,
  greg> therefore, there is no legitimate defense of any aspect of it,
  greg> nor any legitimate reason to associate ones self with any of
  greg> its causes.

I've said as clearly as I am able to say it, presently, what my
position is. I prefer my statement of it to yours.

There *clearly* is no legitimate reason to support Southern Partisan
or *any* neoconfederate groups. If one is genuinely interested in
states's rights as an issue independent of Southern slavery -- and I'm
not sure that's possible, but let's assume that it is -- there are
other ways of pursuing that interest without supporting neoconfederate
groups.

Put it this way: responsibility follows power and privilege. If
Ashcroft is as noble a soul as he and others claim, why didn't he use
some of his considerable power and privilege to find or form a new
group that pursues states's rights w/out being neoconfederate?

  greg> "Say what you will about states rights..."  When I read
  greg> Ashcroft's interview, the only fair reading I can detect of
  greg> what he is saying is referring to states rights, not slavery.

How can that be? He says *very* plainly the following:

    If we don't do more (more of what, he doesn't say!) we will be
    taught that Lee/Jackson/Davis worked for "some perverted agenda".

He clearly implies thereby that they *weren't* working for some
perverted agenda. I think that's as wrong as wrong can be.

States's rights is just a distraction.

  greg> You simply refuse to separate the two.  The confederate side
  greg> was fighting for local control of affairs, despite the evil
  greg> nature of the economic/social system during those times.

*Despite* or because of? And it's by far from historically clear
that's what they were doing. But put that all to the side, as it's not
really relevant.

What, pray tell, is Southern Partisan fighting for *today*? And how
can Ashcroft support them in good conscience if he doesn't want to see
them succeed?

  greg> Although you seem to agree that states rights and slavery are
  greg> not one and the same, you deny that a leader from the south in
  greg> pre-civil war times is capable of distinguishing the two.  Lee
  greg> and Davis were complex figures in their time, and their
  greg> defense of the institution of slavery is despicable to modern
  greg> souls, but their lives were simply not dedicated to holding
  greg> down blacks.  

Didn't they both *own* slaves? Did they do things other than 'holding
down blacks'? (That you could describe slavery in such equanimous terms
is troubling, by the way.) Yes, they did. But certainly the main thing
one has to say about all of them is that they *did* give everything
they had to preserve, protect, and *extend* their way of life, which
was fundamentally premised on a monstrous evil.

	They perceived states rights within the context
  greg> of their time, and it was primarily an economic issue.  

Yes, the economy of slavery.

	I am
  greg> not attempting to defend the indefensible, but pointing out
  greg> that that the confederate viewpoint has a significant and
  greg> legitimate non-racial aspect.  

Hah! That's a textbook self-refuting claim. I hope the philosopher's
on this list are taking notice and collect this claim for their
textbooks.

I'm interested in what you think the "significant and legitimate
non-racial" part of the "confederate viewpoint" is? Surely it's more
than saying 'states's rights, and we have a right to do whatever we
want in our state, and no federal gov't or law can stop us'?

	That, in my mind, is the fair
  greg> reading of Ashcroft's statements.  Maybe I am juxtaposing my
  greg> own views on his statements, but I find it hard to believe
  greg> that he supports prohibition of fundamental rights to blacks.

Why do you find that so hard to believe? More importantly, why do you
find it so hard to believe that while he may not want to support that
directly, he doesn't mind if others pursue it, largely to keep African
Americans 'in line'?

  greg> I hand it to you.  Civil rights movement of 50's - 60's is
  greg> wrapped up in states rights arguments as well.  Certainly a
  greg> key event in this century's history and our nation's history,
  greg> but I don't agree that it is as pivotal as the Civil War to
  greg> the nation's history.

I didn't claim that, so your tilting at windmills. I said that Civil
Rights struggles -- during which, again to repeat, since I'm not sure
you heard it the first time, White Southerners did their damnedest to
perpetuate a system of oppression to black Americans -- were *another*
instance of 'states's rights' being ideological cover for oppression,
the antebellum period being the other.

  greg> I am not aware of his opposition to voluntary desegration in
  greg> St. Louis.  Can you fill me in on what issue you are referring
  greg> to?

Sure. He repeatedly opposed the voluntary desegregation of St Louis
public schools well into the 70s and 80s, some nearly 30 years after
Brown v. Board of Education. He was questioned about this during
confirmation hearings. I found his answers pathetically insufficient.

  greg> It is certainly an interesting perspective that you feel it is
  greg> your duty to insinuate: "racist, racist," but the onus falls
  greg> on others to disprove your charge, for which you provide
  greg> circumstantial evidence at best.  Real political debate is not
  greg> possible until you get past unsubstantiated slander.

So you're clearly unable to engage in real political debate, you'd
agree?

  greg> Although I can't claim specifics, I feel that I can reasonably
  greg> assume your agenda is contrary to the objectives of Bush's
  greg> administration.  

Oh, come on, don't weasel out of it! You made serious claims about
knowing what my 'own agenda' is, and the best you can do to warrant
that claim is 'contrary to the objectives of Bush's administrations'?

Don't you know that when you make public claims you implicitly agree
to validate them when asked? Surely you don't just go around saying
things you can't back up, do you?

	You further your agenda by attempting to
  greg> shamelessly discredit those who you ideologically disagree
  greg> with by smearing them with insinuated falsehoods.  You do this
  greg> by associating them with straw dog positions, thereby
  greg> attempting to further your own political objectives.

I'll only say that you again repeat a claim you don't seem able to
validate: what are my 'own political objectives' the furtherance of
which I would do all those monstrous things you accuse me of?

  greg> PS You certainly detect a bias in my "over-wielding"
  greg> statement.  I will "never, never" deny that.

Fine. So you think the federal gov't has too much power. Can you not
find any way -- can't Ashcroft? -- to pursue that political objective
without supporting neoconfederates?

Surely there are other groups that also want to pursue that goal w/out
supporting White racists? On the right, the Libertarian Party USA
seems at least a possible avenue for that; on the left, various
anarchist groups are interested in decentralization (though radically
different than you probably want).

Kendall Clark
-- 
Honesty subverts!