The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations
George Bush is fond of the phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations," particulary when he goes before an African-American audience (imagine that!) to talk about the achievement gap in education.
Bush should know a lot about low expectations. He's lowered any expectations that we might come out of the grip of his failed economic policies any time soon.
For the fourth straight year in a row, the poverty rate has increased. There are now 37 million Americans living in poverty, in the richest nation on this earth. The number of uninsured Americans also increased.
George Bush can talk about Iraq ad nauseam. Yet he hasn't offered one single solution to help lift the least among us out of poverty.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050831/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/census_poverty
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
"Yet he hasn't offered one single solution to help lift the least among us out of poverty." Neither have the democrats, unless you count the welfare system which does nothing more than keep people dependent on the government and stealing money from my pocket.
Comment by — 2005/08/30 @ 10:44 PM — (Reply)
And when President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, revamped the welfare program, he also placed an emphasis on training those who were coming off of welfare. He said it was important to train them with the 21st century skills they would need in the job market, not just leave them out to dry.
So we have offered plans, thank you.
And the welfare system was not meant to keep people down, as you believe. It was meant to help the least among us who, for whatever reason (health, etc) may not be able to work.
That is a fundamental difference between the conservative right and the progressives in this country. The right believes you are on your own; everyone for self. Progressives believe that we do not live in this world alone, and we have a moral obligation to help our fellow human beings.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/08/31 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
Tax cuts give money back to people. I know what welfare was meant to do, unfortunately all it does is keep on the dole. The right doesn't believe you should be on your own. It's the difference between giving a person a fish and teaching him how to fish.
Comment by — 2005/09/01 @ 07:35 AM — (Reply)
Tax cuts are fine, IF you can afford them. We cannot. The "War President" (who then changed his mind and said he wanted to be the "Peace President") has not asked Americans to sacrifice anything in a time of war.
And yes, the right does believe you should be on your own.
Take for example, Alfonso Jackson, who is the Housing and Urban Development Secretary, and an African-American. Last year, he said he was advising Bush on the Black vote. And he said he told Bush to forget about older African-Americans who came of age during the civil rights movement, and concentrate on younger African-Americans. He said "You can't rise as a class. You have to rise individually. It's what many of the civil rights people don't understand."
And of course the Republicans attacked Hillary Rodham Clinton's book "It Takes a Village, and Other Lessons Children Teach Us." During the 1996 Convention, Bob Dole said "It doesn't take a village. It takes a family." He clearly showed he didn't understand what Mrs. Clinton's book was about: church leaders, community leaders, families, and government all coming together to ensure the best interests of chidren.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/01 @ 08:00 PM — (Reply)
And what would you sacrifice for the war effort if the president were to ask? Your Mr. Kerry voted for the war and so did Hillary yet you don't attack them? I don't want the government or anybody else raising my kids...it does take a family. The government has no business raising my kids. It's true you can rise as an individual. That's what personal responsibility is all about...not about hand outs or never ending welfare...teach a man to fish and he will ear for a lifetime.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/01 @ 10:48 PM — (Reply)
You speak as if all my money is the government's and it condescends to allow me to keep some of it. Tax cuts are not hand-outs. They are the government swiping LESS of MY money. But this is a concept that socialists can't understand.
Tax cuts almost always result in improved economies -- liberal hero JFK understood this, he tried it and it worked. Ronald Reagan imitated JFK in this regard and got clobbered for it by JFK-lovers.
Please also note that Bush killed the 15% tax bracket, which is right where the working poor LIVE. Why had no lefty ever done or even proposed that? Why didn't Clinton do that. Why did Gore never propose such a thing? Why is that Democrats refuse to cut even POOR people's taxes?
Comment by — 2005/09/01 @ 11:06 PM — (Reply)
Senators Kerry and Clinton did not vote for the failure that is Iraq now. What they voted for was authorization for the United States to "speak with one voice" (as Sen. Clinton has often said) to Sadaam Hussein; that if he indeed did have WMDs and refused to comply with the weapons inspectors, that he would face repricutions.
However, we have since learned that he did not have WMDs. The Bush Administration knew this, which is why they got the inspectors out of Iraq so fast before the invasion.
Secondly, you act like I am an opponent of tax cuts. I am not. What I am an opponent of, is tax cuts in a time of war, when our government is not asking us to sacrifice a thing. We cannot afford these tax cuts.
Moreover, I think you will find that many people do not mind extra taxes, if they go towards education, health care, etc to meet the common good.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/02 @ 08:30 PM — (Reply)
oh yeah the "I voted for the war before I was against it" and then failed to supply the troops with what they needed hahahaha I think you will find that most people would rather spend their own money then give it to the government. You can give the government all you want.
Comment by — 2005/09/02 @ 08:59 PM — (Reply)
Thought you might be interested in this from Human Events online, speaking to your Islamic theocracy comment.
Can we all not agree that the Left's favorite virtue is "tolerance"? Then why all the fuss about the Iraqis' culture- and religious-based decision not to accord women the exact degree of rights they enjoy in America? Shouldn't we be tolerant of their cultural decision? Who are we to judge? Who are we to superimpose our values on them?
I'm being partially facetious here to make a larger point. Of course it's noble for Westerners to root and lobby for women's rights in the new Iraqi republican government. But it's also important that we don't cram all our preferences down their constitutional throat.
As we know from distant and recent history, freedom-guaranteeing constitutions are worthless unless they reflect the realities of the people they are designed to govern. The Iraqi Constitution, to have any hope of meaningfulness and success, must be written to accommodate Iraqi values -- or perhaps I should say to blend the competing values in an acceptable, workable compromise.
That's why the difficulties the Iraqis are experiencing in reaching a consensus document are heartening rather than discouraging. If the document had been drafted and adopted precipitously in a spirit of pseudo-harmony, with little debate, conflict and compromise, we would have far more reason for skepticism and pessimism.
Do the critics of this process have any idea how difficult was the American experiment in constitutional drafting and governance? Do they realize that even we didn't get it right the first time, having as our first (and failed) stab at constitutional expression the Articles of Confederation?
Have they forgotten the intense opposition to the Constitution led by the Antifederalists? Or that the Bill of Rights, which some consider the very essence of the Constitution, was added later over much objection?
Some doubters scoff at the idea of a republican constitution for an Islamic people whose culture and traditions may not lend themselves to political liberty and self-rule.
I admit having some concerns about the suitability of such a constitution, given Islam's ostensibly theocratic tilt. But on balance, I'm optimistic. The proposed Iraqi constitution falls way short of creating an Islamic theocracy and expressly forbids sectarianism. But, realistically, how can we expect the Iraqi framers to write Islam out of the Constitution altogether?
Other critics argue that written constitutions are largely irrelevant, as with the former Soviet Union. But the Soviet Union's constitution wasn't a bottoms-up document drafted by duly elected political representatives of the Soviet people and ratified by the electorate. It was a top-down farce cynically foisted on the people by a tyrannical oligarchy that was never meant to be anything more than a propaganda tool. By contrast, the Iraqi draft is an outgrowth and guarantee of popular sovereignty.
I am greatly encouraged by many provisions in the draft. Its preamble is American in form, but quite different in substance -- the framers have adopted our framework, but tailored it to their culture and worldview, making it an Iraqi document with an American flavor, not the other way around.
But more important than the preamble's rhetorical flourishes are its republican elements, its commitment to the rule of law, its real limitations on governmental power, and its affirmative grants of "rights and freedoms."
We should understand, though, that the express grants of "rights and freedoms" in Chapter Two of the draft would indeed be worthless without the real divisions of governmental power it aims to establish.
As Justice Scalia observed in his trenchant dissent in Morrison v. Olson (1988), "Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless, as are the bill of rights of many nations of the world that have adopted, or even improved upon, the mere words of ours."
As if with that admonition in mind, the Iraqi draft separates governmental powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches (Chapter Three), to guard against consolidation of governmental power. Likewise, the federalist division of power (Chapters Four and Five) not only seeks to accommodate the various sectarian factions and regions, but to maximize regional and local autonomy, while preserving a sufficiently powerful national unity.
There are plenty of reasons to approach this venture with caution, and there are legitimate questions about whether democracy and freedom are as compatible with an Arabic and Islamic culture as a Judeo-Christian one.
But one thing should give us great hope. The Iraqi people themselves have undertaken this project of their own volition and at enormous personal risk. If democracy and freedom were inherently incompatible with their culture, would they even be this far along in the process?
Ironically, we should be gratified by the significant hiccups in this process, without which we should be justifiably suspicious of its legitimacy. If democracy and liberty are to work in the Arab Middle East, I can think of no better, albeit imperfect, way to go about it than what we are witnessing today in Iraq.
Comment by — 2005/09/02 @ 09:40 PM — (Reply)
The fact is that the Bush administration has helped install an Islamic theocracy in Iraq. That is the "noble cause" that Casey Sheehan and all the others have died for. To have the Koran installed as the rule of law.
I want you to read the following article:
Tell us again about the women, George
Remember Safia Taleb al-Suhail?
She was the Iraqi woman George W. Bush trotted out for his State of the Union address earlier this year, the daughter of a man murdered by Saddam Hussein who provided the feel-good moment of the president's performance when, sitting up there in the balcony with Laura Bush, she embraced the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq.
We wonder if she'll be invited back for next year's speech.
Bush says he knows that Iraq's still unfinished constitution will be a victory for women because Condoleezza Rice told him so. But if the president were to check in with Suhail, he might come away with a different story. According to a Reuters report, Suhail, who is now Iraq's ambassador to Egypt, believes that the draft Iraqi constitution represents a major setback for the women of her country.
"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women," she said. "But look what has happened -- we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It's a big disappointment."
She is concerned -- as many Iraqis are -- that the draft constitution allows religious sects to run Iraq's family courts, likely leaving decisions about divorce, inheritance and other issues important to women in the hands of Islamic clerics. "This will lead to creating religious courts," she said. "But we should be giving priority to the law."
Suhail said the United States has sold out Iraq's women in the drive to get a constitution -- any constitution -- approved by Iraq's National Assembly. "We have received news that we were not backed by our friends, including the Americans," she said. "They left the Islamists to come to an agreement with the Kurds."
-- T.G.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/08/25/women/index.html
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/03 @ 07:23 AM — (Reply)
Oh i see if it's not MSM and you disagree with them it has to be a lie. Not very good for a liberal who thinks everyone should have an open mind.
Comment by — 2005/09/03 @ 09:15 AM — (Reply)
My point was that Human Events magazine is not a credible source of information to me. I do not trust them to give me information from an unbiased perspective.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/04 @ 07:24 PM — (Reply)
but why do you quote the MSM then? Where do you think yahoo gets there news from? I read your blog and others like it to get your perspective and I try to be open minded even if I disagree.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/05 @ 12:22 PM — (Reply)
I don't think you can sit there with a straight face and pretend you are an unbiased observer? Salon.com etc......
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/07 @ 06:38 AM — (Reply)