What the NAACP Should Have Heard
So President Bush addressed the NAACP earlier today. Here is the text of his remarks.
As most readers of this blog know, I am a firm fan of the President's. But this speech left something to be desired. A lot of its substance consisted of little more than a catalog of everything Big Government has done on George Bush's watch.
One can't help be reminded of President Reagan -- who always refused to define compassion in terms of how willing the government is to spend its citizens' money. What I would rather have heard from President Bush is the following:
-- How many more African Americans own their own businesses since he came into office?
-- How many more African Americans are now in college because of new opportunities enabled by even limited school choice?
-- How many more African Americans are benefiting from programs that have been part of the faith-based initiative?
If the answers to these questions aren't good, the NAACP members deserve to know -- and so do all Americans. But it sends the wrong message (and is, in fact, plain wrong) for the President to succumb to the liberal vision of what constitutes "good government" rather than seizing the opportunity to define, defend and explain one that is more consistent with conservative ideals.
As most readers of this blog know, I am a firm fan of the President's. But this speech left something to be desired. A lot of its substance consisted of little more than a catalog of everything Big Government has done on George Bush's watch.
One can't help be reminded of President Reagan -- who always refused to define compassion in terms of how willing the government is to spend its citizens' money. What I would rather have heard from President Bush is the following:
-- How many more African Americans own their own businesses since he came into office?
-- How many more African Americans are now in college because of new opportunities enabled by even limited school choice?
-- How many more African Americans are benefiting from programs that have been part of the faith-based initiative?
If the answers to these questions aren't good, the NAACP members deserve to know -- and so do all Americans. But it sends the wrong message (and is, in fact, plain wrong) for the President to succumb to the liberal vision of what constitutes "good government" rather than seizing the opportunity to define, defend and explain one that is more consistent with conservative ideals.
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:47 PM
12 Comments:
“I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historic ties with the African American community. For too long my party wrote off the African American vote, and many African Americans wrote off the Republican Party.”
The president deserves high marks for that admission and for the speech as a whole.
The “big government” stuff was only a small part of the speech. Basically, the conservative president reached out to this liberal audience with a speech about their common goals.
btw, the White House website(whitehouse.gov) has a full transcript that does not require registration.
I agree that the improvements made in Black America during the President's watch would have been a great addition to his comments.
The best story in black America is the quiet but continued growing of the black middle class. You won't read about it in the New York Times and friends in the Media, but it is steady and continuing.
The President was right to go, and history will side favorably with him down the road while future generations wonder "what was the NAACP. . . . ?"
Those babies dhead so lovingly describe by dhead rest squarely on the Democratic welfare state of NO, LA.
Ray Nagin, and the woman Governor whatever her name is...
And this should again brighten duke's day. Another of Satan's nightmares come to fruition at the hands of liberals.
Everyone's a victim, except for the real victims. Democratic Party is the party of NO Responsibility.
An important measure of how well things are going is to compare the average change in median income between whites and blacks.
This article at Think Progress is worth taking seriously from all sides of politics.
What it shows is that the growth in household income under Clinton was greater for both Whites and Blacks than under Bush. Moreover, it also shows that the growth of income by Blacks out-performed Whites under Clinton, but was reversed under Bush.
Statistics can often be used to back up all sorts of rubbish. While I sort of liked Clinton, there's no way I would make the argument that this rise in Black income was all due to Clinton, and there's also no way I would put all the blame onto Bush for the current bad result.
The figures under Clinton are obviously massaged by the tech boom of the late 1990s, while Bush's figures are hampered by the lack of such a boom, not to mention fewer years in office.
What it does show is that the deficit-inducing tax cuts that have been passed so enthusiastically by the Republican congress under Bush has failed to affect the economy in the same way as the fiscal discipline of the bipartisan 1990s under Clinton.
Keynsian economics argues (quite succesfully mind you) that deficits produce short-term gain at the expense of long-term pain. The opposite is true when it comes to surpluses - reining in spending or even raising taxes to cover costs (in order to run a surplus) will always have a negative short-term impact but a positive long-term one.
I suppose that's why Clinton and the bipartisan congress in the 1990s was slow off the mark and then became better and better as the years went by. It is also probably why Bush and the Republican Cognress have managed to stimulate short term growth without it really leading to anything like the changes in family income in the previous administration.
And I think the reasons is simple - the tax cuts were given to the rich, who have used their extra cash to buy and invest in schemes that reward other rich people. The wage earners, which Blacks would be part of, have not enjoyed the same level of wealth that richer people have experienced. Thus there is economic growth at the same time as a stagnate average income.
Essentially it comes down to this - in a market economy, the poor are the last to benefit when things are going right, and the first to suffer when things are going wrong.
Even Ken Lay bought his wife a yacht while former Enron employees keep applying for jobs.
OSO, very good thoughful comment, with a lot of truth. Missing some things in the equation, the War on Terror, low unemployment...maybe due to those evil rich people using their wealth to create jobs?
The collapse of the economy has been greatly exagerated for several years now by the MSM. They only wish it was worse.
Imagine how much less the disparity of difference in income between whites and blacks would be if there weren't people like Jesse Jackson, Louis Farakan and Al Sharpton telling blacks that they are victims.
... or if the Republican Party stopped appeasing the KKK.
With a wink and a nod.
Is there really any point in this debate? Who are the victors in a war of words where neither side speaks truthfully?
OSO, I take heed of your words but my friend, all the statistics in the world do not make up for a singular fact. America for all its capitalism, freedom and patriotism has devolved in the past six years into an authoritarian mess headed by a small group of neo-conservatives who wish it was 1950 again. That would be fine with me if everyone could have an EQUAL stake in the rewards that come from hard work and being a law abiding citizen. But we all know this is not the case in America whites are favored over Blacks in all manners of ways.
And as the the wealthy and I mean the truly wealthy not the upper middle class, le nouveau riche, creating jobs, I cannot accept that when executives at Fortune 500 companies are cutting labor daily moving middle class workers into underemployment, a statistic no administration tracks very well.
For all the rolling of eyes from whites when reparations are mentioned the fact still remains that a grievous wrong was committed against a people and a debt owed them has not been paid. If you think this is trivial imagine the howling of whites at the docks in Mobile Alabama if a Portugese ship took ten thousand white men women and children and sold them to King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al Saud? In one thousand years the descendants of these people would demand reparations be paid. It puzzles me that "moral" people choke on such issues. One can only assume that it has something to do with their love of money taking a higher place than the lip service they pay religion.
Easily solved problems if religious and corporate interests would get out of the way. Abortion should be on the ballot in 2008 in November. Every four years the people should go to the polls and vote the issue. In this case the will of the majority should rule. As for affirmative action I am not certain how much action there is or how affirmative, but if it leads to people like Mike brown having jobs they are unqualified to do I am against it. I feel many Americans would like a bit more segregation than you Yanks enjoy right now, you just aren't allow to say that in polite company anymore. Truth be told most Blacks are right sick of a majority of two hundred million whining about being 'discriminated" against.
What's needed is a third party made up of sane men and women who have no corporate allegiances. Until then America will continue to be a nation full of patriotic Christians in full moral and political decline because of them.
Hypothetical maybe, unrealistic no. How is it that the hottest button issues facing your nation are the ones that always leading to spin, rhetoric or outright insult? Frogs? I think one would take the major issues of social conscience in the early 21st century a bit more seriously. Do Americans merely want the caustic verbal fight over abortion and the silent "go along to get along" approach to race and its starving cousin immigration? Or do you want to work together like the deserving citizens of a secular republic to make good on the promises of life and liberty for all?
I thought I did answer question 1. Put abortion up to the people for a vote. America has the technology to do this today. A referendum would end the entire debate and the law resulting would have to be renewed with each presidential election giving Americans a reason to participate in government and taking the corporate and religious interests which drive these divisive issues aside. And trust me I have quite the sense of humor. Imagine how happy conservatives would be if abortion were outlawed for four years?
Gasp!
Then that dead issue would leave an awfully blank slate would it not?
Here's a funny who made the national motto "In God We Trust" and in what year?
Give up?
1956 in response to fears of communism. On coins it first appeared during the Civil War during a fearful time of national division. Does any of this sound familiar?
a bientot!
C. E.
Cavalor,
There was a howling of whites as they were taken hostage and made slaves by Barbary pirates in the 1700's. In fact, between 1530 and 1780, and estimated million and a quarter Europeans were kidnapped and enslaved by Muslim autocracies. American ships were picked off routinely before a real navy was developed to fight them off and make such actions a very bad idea. Surely some of those taken had families and descendants, yet I've never heard of any cries for money from them.
Blacks, as all in this country, have access to most, if not all, of the opportunities America affords. Many have availed themselves of those opportunities. Those who are successful share the same character traits as all successful people, and unfortunately, the unsuccessful share the same traits as all unsuccessful. That some try and fail isn't a concern for the feds. It's a fact of life and it's not a duty of the feds to insure that every is successful, only that they have the right to pursue success. Those that are truly needy are few and for them I don't mind some governmental help, but on the local level.
BTW, the history lesson from above was lifted from Christopher Hitchen's book on Thomas Jefferson. That's for those who insist on a source.
Post a Comment
<< Home