Racism is alive and well--among Dems

As the growing extent and intensity of public opposition to the Obama Administration’s policies threaten to shut down its agenda, defenders of the Administration have resorted to systematic name calling. The most favored epithet is "racist." No less a personage than former President James Earl Carter last week alleged that most of the opposition to the Obama agenda is due to the President’s partly African origins. It is amazing that those same voters who cast their ballots for the President last year but are opposed to his agenda now suddenly have become transformed from public-spirited citizens into bigots.

Democrats have been calling Republicans racists for years, and it is as false as ever. It was the Republican party, after all, which brought about an end to slavery against powerful Democrat opposition. And it was the southern Democrats who maintained apartheid for a century after emancipation and who opposed civil rights legislation until President John Kennedy reluctantly supported Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s efforts to end segregation.

In fact, a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the omnibus Civil Rights Act of 1964, as such southern "liberals" as William Fulbright and Albert Gore, Sr., and former Ku Klux Klan member Robert Byrd, voted "no.".

Kennedy owed his election in the close 1960 contest to the heavy support of black voters in our largest cities, largely because he won the support of King over Republican Richard Nixon. This came at an opportune time, for growing numbers of suburban dwellers were supporting the Republican party.

In spite of the long history of Democrat racism, party leaders seized upon the opposition to the civil rights bill of the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, Sen. Barry Goldwater. Goldwater had a history of opposition to segregation in his home state of Arizona, having desegregated the National Guard. But he believed that the Constitution prohibited the federal government from regulating matters of state jurisdiction.

That vote won Goldwater only five southern states plus Arizona, as he lost to Lyndon Johnson in a landslide. But his opposition to the civil rights bill was enough to earn the racist tag for his party. When Richard Nixon picked a border state governor as his running mate in 1968, enabling him to win several southern states in a very close election, the racist tag stuck.

It is too bad that, in retrospect, Goldwater’s worst fears were vindicated, as the Great Society corrupted the principle of equality from opportunity to entitlement, with affirmative action, goals and timetables and even racial quotas–racial discrimination in reverse.

The same Lyndon Johnson who, as Senate majority leader in the 1950s watered down Republican-sponsored civil rights legislation, became a "born again" civil rights advocate when the electoral needs of his party dictated the shift. But the shocking–and revealing–fact is that there was no change in principle. Whereas Democrat racism once took the form of favoritism for whites, it easily slid over to favoritism for members of racial minorities.

As former President George W. Bush put it one of his 2000 campaign speeches, the Democrats now preach "the soft bigotry of low expectations." Instead of keeping blacks down by denying them the opportunity to advance of their own merits, Democrats now favor hiring or promoting employees, or admitting students, on the basis of their race or ethnicity.

In what black journalist and author Star Parker identifies as the "government plantation," having what used to be called in the slave and segregated South "one drop of Negro blood" makes all the difference. What previously closed doors for millions now opens them.

But it is a trap. Unearned advantages antagonize those losing out, even as the fact of favoritism is not lost on the supposed beneficiaries. "Soft bigotry" benefits only those who, like the slave masters and racists of old, determine who wins and who loses. The modern bureaucratic state, once thought to be based on merit, now teaches us every day that race trumps character.

When Democrats call their critics "racists," they are engaging in what psychologists identify as "projection." Painfully aware of their racist history, Democrats convince themselves that in their current pose as the friend of racial minorities they alone can be trusted with political power. They imagine that Republicans, who do not pose as friends but actually support equal rights, must be racists too unenlightened to appreciate Democrats’ allegedly good intentions.

Democrats believe that if they call Republicans racists long enough the people will forget about slavery and segregation. But the existence of the race-based government plantation gives the whole show away. Race is the Democrat calling card.

Centennial nonpartisan charade

Local elections this fall for school boards and municipal offices (the ones that haven't been canceled for lack of interest) occur in a fog of nonpartisan obscurity. In my Denver Post column this week, I likened the voter's dilemma, absent Republican and Democratic tags to help identify the local candidates, to guessing on unlabeled canned goods at the food bank. The column cited Cherry Creek schools and the city of Centennial, where I reside, as typical cases -- but space didn't allow for specifics. So here are a few of them.

The other day in our neighborhood I noticed a block jammed with parked cars. They belonged to guests at a candidate coffee for John Flerlage, the Democrat hoping to unseat Congressman Mike Coffman next year. His banner adorned the home of Centennial Ward III councilman Patrick Anderson, an activist Democrat who was able to get elected in our heavily Republican area because the ballot allows for no party ID.

Anderson's wife is Jennifer Herrera, who ran for Cherry Creek school board in 2007. She was unhappy with me for distributing an email identifying her as a registered Democrat and Jim O'Brien, the eventual winner, as a Republican.

Jennifer Herrera's brother is Justin Herrera, another Democrat who resides at the same address and ran last year for RTD Board -- nonpartisan again, do you start to see a pattern? The union-backed Herrera lost to Republican Jack O'Boyle, and I again did my bit for open government by noting their respective party identities in a mass email.

My popularity with those good folks no doubt sank lower as a result, and it may go lower still with this blog post. But come on, people, what do you have against sunshine? Are you ashamed of your political party? You want an informed electorate, don't you?

The other council seat here in Ward III is held by the ostensibly nonpartisan Rebecca McClellan. She too is an avid Democrat, having been Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman for Arapahoe County in 2008. As McClellan runs for another term this fall, incumbency will be on her side. Republican challenger Cindy Combs will have the handicap of no party labels on the ballot to guide a GOP-heavy electorate in her direction.

One more example from my idealistic little suburb, where "politics were going to be different" according to the civic founders who incorporated us in 2000, and where I once got in hot water even with fellow Republicans (naive souls) for "soiling" the process with one of my who's-who partisan email slates during campaign season...

This example is Centennial Ward I -- a midterm vacancy contest now occurring between Ron Phelps and Vorry Moon. The nonpartisan gag rule under state law prevents voters from readily knowing that Phelps is with the GOP while Moon is a leading Democrat, chairman of his party's organization in House District 37 where Dems are targeting state Rep. Spencer Swalm.

All that voters will know about Vorry Moon is his previous council service in Centennial, prior to losing a second-term bid to Betty Ann Habig in 2007, and that resume' entry with its accompanying name identification gives him an advantage when the low-profile mail ballot comes out next month.

An unfair advantage in the larger scheme of things, it seems to me -- if we really care about the competitive, accountable elections and governance that two-party politics excels at providing.

Meet Jane & Cory

Our 9/20 show honors Constitution Day with insights from Centennial Institute fellows Greg Schaller and Vince McGuire, as well as Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute. Plus my first interview with former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton since she launched her US Senate candidacy, and another conversation with one of our favorite conservative legislators, state Rep. Cory Gardner, running for Congress to reclaim the 4th CD to the GOP. Thanks for listening.

Vox populi was heard

"It’s a beautiful thing when the voice of the people gets Washington’s attention," says John Andrews in the September round of Head On TV debates, referring to the collapse of support for ObamaCare. But Susan Barnes-Gelt insists his single-payer approach is needed, though "we won't get there this time." John on the right, Susan on the left, also go at it this month over Afgahnistan, the Senate race, the Joe Wilson outburst, and nonpartisan local government. Head On has been a daily feature on Colorado Public Television since 1997. Here are all five scripts for September: 1. HEALTH CARE DEBATE INTENSIFIES

John: It’s a beautiful thing when the voice of the people gets Washington’s attention. Democrats have joined Republicans to put the brakes on Obama’s planned takeover of the medical industry after a summer of public outcry. Could health insurance be improved? Sure, but massive increases in spending and bureaucracy are not the way.

Susan: The US is the only country in the world where health care is controlled by for profit corporations. The bottom line for private health insurance companies is return to shareholders, not quality health outcomes. Single payer is the way to go but we won't get there - this time.

John: It’s also a beautiful thing when my Democratic friends with total control of Washington DC, including the media, are reduced to singing that sad old song, “Maybe next time.” As for health care, Susan, the US is the place that people from other countries flock to for life-saving treatment.

Susan: Like NASCAR racers, every DC elected should wear a coat with sponsor labels plastered on it: Big Pharm, Insurance giants, trial lawyers, Hospital corporations, medical device makers - Then we'd know who is bought and paid for. Won't be room on one jacket. It would take an overcoat, hat & galoshes.

2. SENATE RACE: THE PLOT THICKENS

John: Colorado needs strong representation in the Senate. We don’t have that now, with both senators of the same party and one of them an unknown appointee. A Democrat primary with Andrew Romanoff against interim Senator Michael Bennet will be good. So would a challenge by the experienced Republican Jane Norton.

Susan: Regardless of who gets elected Colorado won't have strong representation in the Senate for decades - the seniority rules guarantee that. However, the party of NO - that would be the R's - have a weak field. Romanoff would be great. Bennet will grow in office.

John: On your side, Romanoff can’t avoid the impression that his candidacy is about wounded ambition – while Bennet must soon alienate either labor or business on the card check bill. On my side, Buck is solid, Frazier is exciting, Wiens is experienced, and Norton could be the next Sarah Palin. Advantage Republicans.

Susan: Frazier - eloquent but empty. Buck can't raise the Bucks - Tom who?? Jane Norton is the horse to beat. I hope she is the next Sarah Palin. We deserve a top notch, gun totin' - moose shootin - stillettto heel wearin comedy act! Can Tina Fey be far behind?

3. EPIDEMIC OF BAD BEHAVIOR?

Susan: Tennis is an elegant sport. Competitors train hard. When they aren't up to snuff - they lose. When they violate clear rules of decorum - the referee eliminates them. Serena Williams lost the US Open semi-finals for bad behavior. South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson should lose his seat for the same reason.

John: As the cracker-barrel philosopher said, politics ain’t beanbag, or tennis. Congressman Wilson spoke for millions of Americans, including some erstwhile Obama supporters, who no long trust the President to tell the truth. Health care doubletalk from the Democrats has a lot of us disgusted. Wilson’s bad manners are minor by comparison.

Susan: Boorishness at town hall meetings, public rallies and tea parties is one thing. Lack of civility amidst a sacred ritual of American democracy -- the nation watching while Cabinet members, lawmakers from both chambers and the diplomatic corps watch the President address a joint session of Congress -- insults us all.

John: Sorry, a ritual is not sacred unless God is involved. Government is not God. The President is not king. He has no divine right to command silence from congressmen, anyone. The disrespect shown by Democrats to this summer's peaceful protesters was far worse than Wilson's rudeness to Obama.

4. AFGHANISTAN: WHAT NEXT?

Susan: George Santayana was right: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Afghanistan has been torn by tribal warfare for centuries. The Brits failed 100 years ago. The Russians left in defeat 30 years ago. Obama risks another Vietnam. He must exit - now.

John: Susan, that’s September 10 thinking in a September 11 world. President Obama was elected on a promise to crush Al Qaeda and the Taliban and win in Afghanistan. I praise him for hanging tough. For America to surrender over there would endanger our world leadership and our homeland.

Susan: John - pundits on your side of the aisle are calling for an exit strategy. George Will, Richard Haass and others join a majority of Americans who believe it's time to pull our troops out. Nation building is not a winning strategy. Did we learn nothing from the losses in lives, treasure and credibility in Iraq?

John: Radical Islam wants to destroy America and dominate the world. The mastermind is Iran. The battle cry is jihad. We took a step toward victory by defeating jihad in Iraq. Now we must defeat jihad in Afghanistan. Radical Islam is poisonous to human freedom. It must be stopped. It’s up to us.

5. PARTISAN POLITICS & LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Susan: I love local government because it's non-partisan. D's don't do a better job of paving streets, maintaining parks or regulating land use than R's. Local challenges and opportunities are just that - local. Inserting partisan labels on trash, roads, parks or schools is a terrible idea.

John: Coloradans voting for local officials and school boards this fall are forced to guess in the dark about which nonpartisan candidate supports their values on fiscal responsibility, role of government, and educational excellence. Many candidates are unopposed, with some elections cancelled as a result. Party competition replaces apathy with accountability.

Susan: In Denver local elections have high turnout. Besides, local and school board elections aren't about partisan issues. If voters don't take the time to learn about the candidates, they get what they deserve. The D /R cheat sheet sheds more heat than light.

John: Nonpartisan government is mediocre and ripe for abuse. The nonpartisan RTD keeps raising taxes for a rail system it can’t build. Nonpartisan school boards are run by teacher unions. Colorado should let Republicans and Democrats compete at the local level. Party competition is the American way.

Let parties compete locally

(Denver Post, Sept. 20) Some ideas are so dumb, they could only be in the New York Times. “One-party autocracy” in the world’s fastest-growing economy, China, has “great advantages,” according to Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Of course, you’d want the rulers to be an “enlightened group of people.” But Friedman certifies the Beijing autocrats are just that. Right. My subject today happens to be local government in Colorado, not central government in China. I’m addressing the problem of "suppose you held an election and nobody came" – illustrated by five metro school districts calling off their elections for lack of candidates. But Friedman’s howler is apropos. Our schools, transit, and municipalities will run more and more Chinese-style if something doesn’t change. The American way is not paternalistic rule by the enlightened. It’s two-party competition. Yet our state, like most others, bans such competition in elections below the county level. What’s good enough for electing legislators, governors, and even presidents – hot political rivalry between Democrats and Republicans, with other parties also in the mix – is deemed not good enough for picking the mayor, council, school board, or RTD Board. Why?

Nonpartisan local governance is a utopian relic from the Progressive era a hundred years ago. Scientific administration by altruistic experts in the “cities of tomorrow” was supposed to replace self-interested power struggles. Do you see any evidence that it worked out that way? Me neither.

Thank goodness the country at least retained a competitive partisan arena in which power could check power at the state and federal level. Imagine how many presidential terms such aspiring progressive autocrats as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson might have wangled from our grandparents, absent a raucous opposition party to say “Not so fast.”

We know of nothing autocratic about Littleton School Board president Bob Colwell or RTD Board chairman Lee Kemp. Both are no doubt good men. But Colwell and two other Littleton incumbents will take another term this fall by default. No opponents filed against them, so the election was cancelled as state law provides. As for Kemp, he was elected unopposed last time. So were seven of his 14 fellow RTD directors.

Fewer than half the RTD director elections in the past decade have been contested races. School board elections are often uncontested as well. Districts in Aurora, Cherry Creek, Commerce City, and Adams 12 have joined Littleton in calling off their 2009 elections. The school boards association is “no longer surprised when races fail to generate interest,” the Denver Post reported.

Even when local citizens do get to choose between candidates, knowing what you’re getting isn’t easy. When voters in my city of Centennial mark their mail ballots next month, for example, they will have to rely on whispers to know which of the contenders for mayor and council are smaller-government Republicans or bigger-government Democrats. It’s like guessing on unlabelled canned goods at the food bank.

Localities tax and spend on our behalf in the many millions of dollars; schools and RTD spend in the billions. Vital ideas and values are involved. Public safety is involved. The stakes are too high to continue with these milquetoast nonpartisan elections. For better government, we should choose the responsible officials via party nominations and platforms.

Competitive political parties are the best idea the Founding Fathers never had. American self-government has thrived under them for two centuries, expanding opportunity and safeguarding liberty – not to perfection, but far better than the enlightened one-party Chinese.

Now Colorado should let the parties compete locally. Lift the lid. Gun the engines. The unions won’t like it; they make hay in the shadowy, apathetic status quo. The media will also object, fearing erosion of their dominance as information brokers. The Democrats, shrewder behind the scenes than Republicans, won’t welcome the change either. But it’s time.