« Pixar and the Goldman Aphorism | Main | The Case Against Wall:E »

The Case of Jesse Helms

07 Jul 2008 02:52 pm

The liberal blogosphere wants to know: Why have conservatives lined up to say kind things about the late Jesse Helms? Partially because nobody wants to speak ill of the dead, but largely because Helms was an sometimes-effective, always-steadfast champion of conservative causes for decades, and there's a sense on the right that the liberal case against Helms-the-awful-bigot is really just the latest manifestation of the long-running liberal attempt to argue that (as William Voegeli puts it in a fine essay on race and the Right in the latest CRB) "the essence of conservatism is and always has been Dixiecrat-ism ... [and] that everything that conservatism has accomplished and stood for since 1965—Reagan, the tax revolt, law-and-order, deregulation, the fight against affirmative action, the critique of the welfare state...everything—is the poisoned fruit of the poisoned tree."

Regular readers will know that I sometimes have sympathy for these sentiments, and that I tend to be sensitive to the way that liberals cry "racism!" in an effort to disarm conservative arguments on issues ranging from crime to affirmative action to Jeremiah Wright. And in that vein, I should note that I'm not convinced that Helms' famous "white hands" ad merits the sort of outraged denunciations that Andrew and Max Boot have offered up today - since if it does, the implication would seem to be that any hard-hitting attack on racial preferences is ipso facto racist.

But a specific ad is one thing; Helms himself is another. He simply was an awful bigot, and worse he was an awful bigot who never expressed a shred of remorse, so far as I know, for his toxic approach to issues ranging from civil rights to HIV to foreign affairs. Far from being the sort of politicians who conservatives ought to defend, out of a sense of issue-by-issue solidarity, he's the sort of politician conservatives ought to carefully distance themselves from, because his political style brought (and continues to bring) intellectual disrepute to almost every cause with which he was associated. Inherent to conservatism is the responsibility to stand up and say to bien-pensant opinion: Just because a bigot opposes something doesn't mean it's a good idea. But the necessity (and difficulty) of making that case, whether the issue is affirmative action or "comprehensive" immigration reform or the NEA and Piss Christ, is all the more reason for conservatives to keep their distance from actual bigots, even (or especially) when they're representing the great state of North Carolina in the U.S. Senate. Jonathan Rauch had it right in 2002: If Ronald Reagan and Helms had similar positions on countless issues, that doesn't prove that Helms was good for conservatism; it only suggests that conservatives should look for more Reagans, and fewer Jesse Helms. I'm happy to defend Helms' views on a variety of issues, but the man himself has no business in the right-wing pantheon, and the conservatives who have used his death as an occasion to argue that he does are doing their movement a grave disservice.

Comments (73)

Partially because nobody wants to speak ill of the dead, but largely because Helms was an sometimes-effective, always-steadfast champion of conservative causes for decades, and there's a sense on the right that the liberal case against Helms-the-awful-bigot is really just the latest manifestation of the long-running liberal attempt to argue that ...


Why all the hand wringing? You finally get to the nut of it in the second part of your post. Helms was a bad man. You are right that conservatives should not look up to him. You are even more right, if you expect more than token support from African Americans. Your colleague Matt, Ezra Klein and many others have posted numerous examples of Helms out right hate. Wouldn't it be better for Bush and McConnell not to say anything at all? A patriot? Please!! What about the blood of nuns on his hand(Since Helms loved him some right wing Central American dictators)? The problems with conservatives, Ross, is that liberals don't wash away the sins of people like Ted Kennedy. Conservatives, on the other hand, can't have any of that. Unless and until you face that fact and own up to the awfulness that was people like Helms, the conservative movement will get the scorn it is rightly deserves.

Here, here.

Jeremiah Wright isn't an issue.

Helms held disreputable views on a few subjects, he is rightfully part of the right-wing pantheon, and his disrepute does rub off to an extent on the right wing movement in general. The man built the NC GOP, and was a lion in the senate, also building conservative control of the Washington GOP through bitter infighting with, and at the expense of the old Eisenhower/Nixon/Ford/GHW Bush wing of the party.

Reagan didn't remake the GOP by his lonesome. Helms lead the way for many conservative populists to think of the Republican party as their party.

Helms was a terrible man.

Helpful to compare Ross' take with this piece by Fred Barnes:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/008/585mqmat.asp

I dont even have to read Fred Barnes' piece after watching that douchebag's bigoted and disgraceful performance on Fux Nooz Sunday, in which he said that the only way McCain has a shot at winning in November is if McCain runs in with his hair on fire, shouting "Oh NOES!!!! TEH GAYZ!!!"

Jesse Helms would have been proud.

1) On the larger point, I'd love to see an explanation for how Goldwater carried Mississippi 7 to 1 (that's 87% to 13%) that does not involve race. I'd love to see a follow-up explanation for how all of the animus from that election dissipated in the next 16 years such that, by 1980, President Reagan could give a speech in Mississippi supporting Civil Rights and it would be unfair to label said speech as racially charged or appealing to race.

2) On the more specific point, a friend of mine, a black lady from Carolina, met Senator Helms at his senate office in the early 1990's as part of a youth in government program. He did not address race specifically, but he was very gracious and welcoming to her, including putting his arm around her when posing for photos. She was very pleasantly surprised by the meeting and did not have an unkind thing to say about the man thereafter. Take that for what it's worth.

"The problems with conservatives, Ross, is that liberals don't wash away the sins of people like Ted Kennedy. Conservatives, on the other hand, can't have any of that."

Really? So when Ted Kennedy passes away in the somewhat near future, I won't find a slew of liberals lionizing him and his achievements?

Bobar-

Kennedy's faults were personal, Helm's faults were political. Praising Kennedy's public record says nothing about liberals views on drowning or car accidents--conservatives praise for Helms shows that they really don't care if someone is a raging bigot.

Really? So when Ted Kennedy passes away in the somewhat near future, I won't find a slew of liberals lionizing him and his achievements?

I will be PROUD to stand up and lionize Ted Kennedy and his policy accomplishments.

That is a whole different thing from approving of his private life.

I defy you to stand up and wholeheartedly and proudly defend Jesse Helms' world view and policy accomplishments.

I dare you.

"and there's a sense on the right that the liberal case against Helms-the-awful-bigot is really just the latest manifestation of the long-running liberal attempt to argue that (as William Voegeli puts it in a fine essay on race and the Right in the latest CRB) "the essence of conservatism is and always has been Dixiecrat-ism ."

So rather than reflect upon whether or not this liberal critique is correct, given this apt example, my friends on the right find it easier to ignore his unsavory past. OK. I've always felt that the right just wants to win their argument, truth and facts be damned! He carried our water, and now we'll carry his!

I understand ripping Sen Helms but there could be no Reagan without a Jesse Helms. You can find as many Reagans as you want (not that it is possible) but you will still need at least one Jesse Helms to throw the sharp elbows that are necessary in the political process. Helms made people in his own party uncomfortable due to his uncompromising ways.. It has been mentioned elsewhere, but not here, but It was Helms who stuck with Reagan in '76 when all seemed lost. It was only because Helms came through for Reagan in the NC Primary that he remained a force to reckon with in 1980. Helms did many bad things but you know what? He set it up for the best president of the last half of the last century. His ugliness was worth it.

It's fascinating that the right couldn't entertain the notion that perhaps people hated Helms because he was an awful bigot.

It's the usual irony - everything is a stratagem for the right, so they win more than perhaps they should, but have sacrificed the good things conservatism offers along the way.

The left is more concerned with self-righteousness than winning, (e.g. Kos Fisa Obama) and so maintains ridiculously high standards but no real power rather than a compromise to hold government.

The irony is despite what HRC said, Obama might well turn out to be LBJ more than MLK.

He simply was an awful bigot, and worse he was an awful bigot who never expressed a shred of remorse

Why all the hand wringing? You finally get to the nut of it in the second part of your post. Helms was a bad man.

Helms was a terrible man.

Perhaps in another time and in another place less coarsened than our own, it might generally be expected that an assessment of the person and an assessment of his views on social policy might not be confounded (or, better yet, that one might just assess ideas, dispositions, and behavior and leave the assessment of persons to God).


conservatives praise for Helms shows that they really don't care if someone is a raging bigot.

If you read the magazine profiles of him you can remark two aspects of the description: courtly manners and a specialization in the mastery of parliamentary procedure. Neither is suggestive of a choleric temperament; it is doubtful that he was a 'raging' anything.


So rather than reflect upon whether or not this liberal critique is correct, given this apt example,

Jonesin', it has been discussed again and again in this forum. It is a Swiss cheese thesis and scarcely merits further discussion.


it only suggests that conservatives should look for more Reagans, and fewer Jesse Helms.

Mr. Helms was once associated with Willis Smith and people who remember his radio commentaries from the 1950s do not recall them fondly (evidently no recordings survive, unlike the television commentaries which are reportedly gentler). There likely is not a whole lot else he did that would merit condemnation rather than critical assessment. And, again, the man's work is not his life, much less his essence.

You do not want more politicians like Mr. Reagan. His career was a tribute to the feature of our political life that academics refer to as 'institutionalization', that feature which renders competent leadership unnecessary for longer than you think. Read the testimony offered by David Stockman, Donald T. Regan, Tip O'Neill, and Edmund Morris, for starters. He hardly knew whether he was coming or going, and he taught the Republican Party self-deception in certain matters of policy, so well that as a collectivity it has been unable to comprehend accounting identities for some time.

Why have conservatives lined up to say kind things about the late Jesse Helms? Partially because nobody wants to speak ill of the dead, but largely because Helms was an sometimes-effective, always-steadfast champion of conservative causes for decades, and there's a sense on the right that the liberal case against Helms-the-awful-bigot is really just the latest manifestation of the long-running liberal attempt to argue that (as William Voegeli puts it in a fine essay on race and the Right in the latest CRB) "the essence of conservatism is and always has been Dixiecrat-ism ...

Pretty characteristic of the in-group/out-group dynamics that are all too common to the GOP (and, not coincidentally, to Dixiecratism as well), no? After all, if conservatives really wanted to counter the idea that conservatism is essentially just Dixiecrat-ism rebranded, the last thing they should do is enthusiastically eulogize the last great unrepentant, southern, racist politician. What you're left with then is basically "this man is (was) part of my group, and people from a different group don't like him, but I'll defend him because he's part of my group, regardless of his record." That's essentially the narrative you're positing here, no?

I think it should be pretty clear that conservatism is NOT merely a form of Dixiecratism, but sadly, the toxic tribalism and identity politics inarguably pollute both, not just explicitly in people like Mr. Helms, but also implicitly, as in those rushing to eulogize him.

Whoever used Ferrell at 4:12 - I've got the stones to use my real name, so steal someone else's pseduonym if you're too afraid to create your own.

Deco - Fair critique, but re: Reagan, I won't take Tip O'Neill's word for much of anything. Reagan was an exceptional leader, which skills he needed since he wasn't "deep" enough in other areas.

That doesn't preclude some of his other flaws, but in the whole, give the man his due. As with Bush, (and I will NEVER compare the two again) it's tough to reconcile the deceitful mastermind behind the scenes vs. the village idiot competing personas that people like to use.

Election after election the GOP moans about why in staggering numbers black folks despise their party and apparently would rather eat glass than vote their way. You have only to read the glorification of a bastard like Jessie Helms to know why we will never, ever support the Republican party.

Perhaps in another time and in another place less coarsened than our own, it might generally be expected that an assessment of the person and an assessment of his views on social policy might not be confounded (or, better yet, that one might just assess ideas, dispositions, and behavior and leave the assessment of persons to God).

But an assessment of Jesse Helms as a "person" and his "views on social policy" have to go hand in hand! Jesse Helms, as a person and as a politician, will forever be defined by his bigotry. End of story.

And Art Deco, how do you define Bill Clinton? By his actions as a person, or his views on social policy? Because I seem to remember the Republicans trying to kick him out of office over an extra-marital affair.

And MoeLarry, I may need an editor, but spare the post please.

You couldn't do as good a post with a cock in your mouth, Moe.

Helms was a vile, upfront, old-fashioned bigot, and he completely deserves the disrespect he's getting now. But look to your own house first, Ross, and to the link to Steve Sailer's racist nonsense and your own "welfare duchess" fiasco. "Not as bad as Jesse Helms" isn't much of an accomplishment - and I actually think Sailer is worse than Helms, in his small, mean way.

Ferrell is your real name?

Is that your surname or did they give you it at the pet store?

the implication would seem to be that any hard-hitting attack on racial preferences is ipso facto racist

Nah, just the racist ones.

Art Deco writes: "You do not want more politicians like Mr. Reagan. His career was a tribute to the feature of our political life that academics refer to as 'institutionalization', that feature which renders competent leadership unnecessary for longer than you think. Read the testimony offered by David Stockman, Donald T. Regan, Tip O'Neill, and Edmund Morris, for starters. He hardly knew whether he was coming or going, and he taught the Republican Party self-deception in certain matters of policy, so well that as a collectivity it has been unable to comprehend accounting identities for some time."

Here comes the Apocalypse, since I agree with Artie.

We wouldn't have Dumbya Bush if Saint Reagan hadn't convinced the Repiglicans that an amiable dunce was the best possible profile for a president.

Ferrell, have you gone insane? I really don't need to know what you have in your mouth when you post.

Of all the things you may need Ferrell, an editor wasn't the one I thought of first.

I won't take Tip O'Neill's word for much of anything.

Tip O'Neill professed to like Reagan personally. The burden of the remarks in question had to do with Reagan's habits of mind: that he thought by default in anecdotes and it was difficult or impossible for him to apprehend systemic effects when considering policy alternatives. I do not think that the Speaker was the only one who noted this.

Okay, I agree w/ Pithlord now on the posts.

But an assessment of Jesse Helms as a "person" and his "views on social policy" have to go hand in hand! Jesse Helms, as a person and as a politician, will forever be defined by his bigotry.

Acts and thoughts are manifestations of a person's essence; they are not properly identified with a person's essence. Please note, the complaints against Helms offered above make implicit reference only to fragments of his public life. Please note also, that his public life was not the whole of his life. You propose to 'define' him as a politician by confusing him with Theodore Bilbo or J.B. Stoner and 'define' him as a person while giving no thought to who he was on a mundane basis.

Don't put yourself down Ferrell, a decent editor and you'll be fine.

A decent editor and Ross would be fine too.

And Art Deco, how do you define Bill Clinton? By his actions as a person, or his views on social policy? Because I seem to remember the Republicans trying to kick him out of office over an extra-marital affair.

There is a Michael Kelly column on Roger Clinton penned some years ago that makes reference to his brother. I would recommend it. It might be on the Town Hall site.

If you would make a comprehensive assessment of Bill Clinton as a character, you would look at the whole picture, with evaluations of his work life and his mundane life under subheadings.

Much in the way of policy is made as well as implemented by the permanent government and modified only fitfully by elected officials. Politicians are not completely interchangeable, but you usually suffer only briefly exchanging one for another. The net effect of ejecting Mr. Clinton from office would have been to entrust to Mr. Gore the task of supervising the fitful and fragmentary modifications. It would have also been a useful reminder that some things are sinful shameful and that people with properly ordered sensibilities experience shame and embarrassment when exposed. That was reason enought to do it.

Actually Ferrell, given what you are apparently doing while posting, You don't need an editor but a position at Cirque du Soleil.

I think it should be pretty clear that conservatism is NOT merely a form of Dixiecratism, but sadly, the toxic tribalism and identity politics inarguably pollute both, not just explicitly in people like Mr. Helms, but also implicitly, as in those rushing to eulogize him.

It is a bit rich to suggest that political tribalism is a peculiarly Republican vice.

Ferrell, I'm interested in the comments again now.

And in yourself. My username should give you a hint. x

I accept that Ross is not now nor has he ever been a Jesse Helmsian.

But he evades the crucial issue: What is his stance on "To His Coy Mistress"?

Jesse Helms and Robert Byrd .. Perfect Together

Ferrell,

It doesn't bother me that men do to your mouth what you do to the English language.

But

Dear Jesse

would be so upset.

What made the "white hands" ad disgusting wasn't that it attacked racial preferences, but that it made an unabashed racial appeal to white voters while shunning non-whites. A voiceover that states, "You deserved that job, but they had to give it to a minority," clearly isn't speaking to minority voters. Helms could have run an ad that explained his view that racial references were unfair and asked all voters, white and minority, to support him in opposing the policies. Instead, he ran an ad that told white people, "I'm on your side," and told minorities, "I've got nothing to say to you."

But that point aside, I'm happy to find at least one conservative willing to denounce Helms' repugnant views, rather than ignore, obfuscate, or even defend them. Thanks, Ross.

I am a productive member of society.

"Jesse Helms and Robert Byrd .. Perfect Together"

This sort of bullshit "pox on both their houses" nonsense from fake centrists like Neo is getting really old, really quick. Robert Byrd has long since renounced his Klan ties and since then has been a valuable voice in the US Senate. Maybe if we'd listened to some of his impassioned oratory on the floor of the Senate back in 2003, 4000 United States Servicemen wouldn't have died for a farce in Iraq, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and over a million fleeing their homeland.

Jesse Helms, on the other hand, remained a disgusting bigot until the day he died. Since Ross is a Catholic, I figure a rather popular story from that thing called "The Bible" is apt. Remember when Jesus was crucified, how he was between a pair of thieves? And how one repented of his sin, and Christ said something about seeing him again real soon? That's the difference between Robert Byrd and Jesse Helms. Or rather, in Byrd's case, he repented soon enough that he might do some good for the country to outwiegh his misspent youth.

Well spoke, Mr Douthat.

I would be hard pressed to come up with a single contemporary politician whose influence was so baleful, and whose words and actions so hateful as the late Helms. Strom Thurmond, a fellow segregationist, at least had a few human weaknesses and hypocrisies to make him amusing and interesting. Thurmond--who had been the 'Dixiecrat' party's candidate for the presidency in 1948--was smart enough (if not decent enough) to put aside that anti-nigrah stuff (though not gay-baiting), when he finally saw it as a liability. In his later years, his service to black South Carolinians was as assiduous as that to whites. So Thurmond deserves that much.

But Helms? Ol' Jesse, by contrast, never had to change his ways with the times. Unless there was a deathbed apology from him like from the late George Wallace (which I've not heard any evidence of) then he managed to leave the world the same vicious cracker he always was, and without a single ennobling moment. Except for tobacco company executives, he never did a damned thing for North Carolinians, white or black--except play to their worst hates and fears, and the country's as well.

That the singer Bono (formerly of U2), was able to cajole this miserable being into supporting aid to Africans hard hit by HIV does not mitigate Helms' atrocities in the slightest. After all, Jesse fought with unmatched skill and single-minded frenzy to hamstring any public funding for AIDS research, treatment, education, or client services. If not for the work of creatures like him (and of course, it was more than just him blocking whatever he could and sabotaging anything else), perhaps we would have had a safe and effective vaccine years ago.

Not even this exhausts the man's evil--banal as it was; for his willingness to try to choke off any action that might be seen as helping gays in any way was accompanied by some of the most preternaturally vicious gloating at their sufferings this side of the Reverend Fred Phelps. To be fair, Jesse could not quite match Phelps' psychotic level of vituperation, but that was only due to a lack of imagination on Helms' part--not to any innate dignity or scruple.

The sort of qualified apologias offered for this creature by supposedly non-bigoted conservatives here and elsewhere are even more nauseating than the full-bore panegyrics coming either from bigots, or those catering to bigots. This sort of praise-by-faint-damnation has the same ring as that black-comedy joke, "But look at the good things Hitler did!"

I happen to despise Ted Kennedy; his shameful moral cowardice in not admitting that yes, he was drunk behind the wheel, and yes, he panicked and left Miss Kopechne behind to die when his car sped off the bridge and into the cove back in 1969, may soon be irremediable unless he chooses to own up to what happened and apologize for it. Yet there is a vast and unbridgeable gulf that separates such pathetic weaknesses as these--contemptible though they are, from the sort of active malice that--courtly manners aside--oozed out of Helms' very being. To reverse an old bumper sticker, millions more people have died from HIV and cigarette-induced cancers, then ever perished in Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile.

The topic of conservatives--even decent ones--catering to bigots (Nota bene: not that they were bigots, but that they catered to bigots) is too big to tackle at the end of a post. Suffice it to say that historians are discovering more and more evidence of this with each fresh examination of the record.

Example: In 1971, who devised "The Philadelphia Plan", an attempt to use 'affirmative action' to deliberately set blacks and trade unionists at one another's throats and further rive the pro civil-rights coalition? Was it: a.) Nixon speechwriter Patrick Buchanan, b.) Vice-President Spiro Agnew, or c.) Nixon's then-Secretary of Labor, George Schultz. The answer is (ta-da!): c.) George Schultz (who ultimately became Reagan's second Secretary of State) Yes, that very model of a modern 'moderate' mandarin, turning his keen mind to cooking up ways to rub racial wounds a little sorer for the greater glory of the Nixon administration. As I wrote earlier, more incriminating stuff comes to light with each passing day...

"Or rather, in Byrd's case, he repented soon enough that he might do some good for the country to outwiegh his misspent youth."

TR: The "good" of talking about "white niggers" and assuring huge amounts of tax-dollars are wasted on pet projects in his home state. (I'm talking about stuff in the last ten years)

He used to smoke Marlboros. Only when there were cameras around. And he didn't inhale. THAT's fraud for you!

Re: Yes, that very model of a modern 'moderate' mandarin, turning his keen mind to cooking up ways to rub racial wounds a little sorer for the greater glory of the Nixon administration.

???
Affirmative Action was devised as a means to give Blacks "a piece of the pie", and perhaps also show them a Republican party that was willing to side with their interests. Remember, there was a great deal of radicalism afoot back in 1970 and the Nixon administration was afraid that the Civil Rights movement might well become a wedge for full-bore Marxism. I don't think anyone thought AA would fan racial resentments because the ecoomy in those days was very different, with plentiful jobs and opportunities. The objective was to buy social peace.

Private misdeeds only? Will liberals praise the mendacity and character assassination employed by Ted Kennedy in 1987 in his assault on Robert Bork? In my book, Kennedy's death, when it comes, will represent a textbook case of addition by subtraction.

Trexler writes: "Will liberals praise the mendacity and character assassination employed by Ted Kennedy in 1987 in his assault on Robert Bork? "

I am very glad Bork was blocked from the Supreme Court. I just wish Clarence Thomas had been dumped, too.

Me, I look at Jesse Helms as the Marge Schott of the Senate. A dinosaur, provincial and pig-headed. Occasionally correct, only out of sheer stubbornness. It should have been clear to a senator soon enough that AIDS was affecting people other than gays and drug addicts, but this didn't appear to dawn on Helms until he crossed paths with Bono, of all people. Still, the hateful things Helms spewed in the 50's were not all that unusual for the politics of the time - back in those pre-Clinton days, no ambitious Southern politician of either party got very far without at the very least pandering to bigots. And that's how we got scenarios like Jimmy Carter in 1970 referring to Lester Maddox as "the essence of the Democratic Party" and somebody he was proud to be on the ticket with. Besides, any ambitious Democrat who's made the pilgrimage to Harlem to kiss the ring of the loathsome and unapologetic (but media-savvy) Al Sharpton has little ground to pontificate about Jesse Helms today.

Still, the hateful things Helms spewed in the 50's were not all that unusual for the politics of the time - back in those pre-Clinton days, no ambitious Southern politician of either party got very far without at the very least pandering to bigots.

Yes, but Helms never apologized for his racism. At least Thurmond, Byrd and Wallace eventually recognized they were on the wrong side of history. Helms was just a hateful person.

Besides, any ambitious Democrat who's made the pilgrimage to Harlem to kiss the ring of the loathsome and unapologetic (but media-savvy) Al Sharpton has little ground to pontificate about Jesse Helms today.

Come on, to compare Al Sharpton and Jesse Helms is ridiculous. Sharpton is a disgusting, slimey individual. But nobody takes Al Sharpton seriously. Do you think when he dies he'll be lionized by the liberal press? Like the fawning tributes to Helms from the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, etc.?

But the essence of conservatism today is racism and bigotry. That's the core of the Republican Party - southern racists. Admittedly, there are some racists that soft-peddle their views, and some that are outspoken about them, but the views are the same. So the outpouring of support for avowed racist Helms is not at all surprising. It's a core issue of the Republican Party, even if they don't always advertise it as openly as Helms did. He's not being praised *in spite* of his racism, he's being praised *for* his racism.

"But the essence of conservatism today is racism and bigotry." Larry

Good grief, groan, etc.

Sorry, but politics aside, which allows momentarily a true glimpse at reality before the window slams shut again, Jesse Helms was a bigot wearing that smiling, good ole boy veneer so sweetly affected by frightened white men terrified that the Founders' genius at defining black people as less than white people might be, could be, egads! will be, overturned by a coddled new bunch of progressive fools. Helms has done more to hasten the decline of hypocritical conservatism by living it than any avalanche of spot on op/ed pieces could have done. RIP Jesse Helms, but quit complaining about where you find yourself now - it's your own damned fault.

I can't hear you. I have a cock in my ear.

Poor Ross... it must be a difficult situation to be in, castigating your conservative brethren: "guys, if you keep on acting overly racist and praising racists, people will think our support for racist policies are based on racism!". I'll allow that someone can be free of prejudice and still support some of the right's views (and I believe Ross is an honorable example of such a person), but in practice, his views on immigration for example simply would not enjoy mainstream political support without being buoyed by a substantial segment of people who are racist. That doesn't of itself mean that Ross is wrong on immigration, but he also shouldn't be surprised when his ideological brothers in arms speak well of a bigot like Helms.

Lawrence,

I hope you are right about Ross, but his hero and mentor was William 'keeps the n****** segregated, and tattoo the queers' Buckley, he keeps linking to Steve Sailer and approving some of his posts, he thinks the Helms ad with white hands crushing black face is fine, and brought up 'welfare queens' when nobody else was talking about them, and renames them 'welfare duchesses'.

I'm always curious about the gap between public and private. If Ross is fine with all this being public, what views does he keep private.

Thanks for pointing me towards Voegeli's thoughtful essay, which is well worth anyone's time. As a liberal, I have three observations on Voegeli's essay, and on the conversation going on here.

1. In discussing the "principled" conservatives who chose to oppose civil rights legislation, Voegeli observes that "The constitutional principles at the heart of this project were—are—ones that liberals find laughable, fantastic, and bizarre. Because they cannot take them seriously they reject the possibility that conservatives do. Thus, liberals dismiss "states' rights" as nothing more than a code word for racism." There are moments when the veneer is completely stripped away and we discover how important those constitutional principles truly are and were to conservatives. One such moment was Bush vs. Gore, in which five conservative justices were not only willing to intervene in the affairs that legitimately belonged to a state, but were prepared to concoct an 'equal protection' claim that they explicitly stated set no precedent to protect anyone else in the future! Principles, indeed! Then, more recently, there are the Bush administration's attempts to preempt California from implementing stronger global warming regulations. Neither of these events evince any concern whatsoever for states rights. Rather, they evince a concern for raw power, exercised to protect those who are already privileged and powerful: nothing more and nothing less.

Second, Voegeli is admirably willing to admit that "The single most disturbing thing about Buckley's reactions to the civil rights controversies was the asymmetry of his sympathies—genuine concern for Southern whites beset by integrationists, but more often than not, perfunctory concern for Southern blacks beset by bigots." There has been major progress in civil rights since then. But there are still major problems -- as is made clear by the plentiful research that the same resume which gets white people an interview does not get black people an interview, and that rentals which were available on the phone to white-sounding individuals suddenly and systematically disappear when a black man in a suit arrives to look at them. However, in discussing hiring and affirmative action, Voegeli can worry about the "Myriad decisions in a million situations—such as job interviews, college applications, and training programs—need now comply with federal "standards" that are rarely clear or constant, and are always subject to further revisions driven by perpetual interest-group lobbying," but still not find time for the very real injustices these laws imperfectly attempt to remedy. In this, he (and even the best elements of his "movement") sadly continues to walk in Buckley's shoes.

Third, Voegeli is wise enough to note that many blacks, who might be instinctively conservative, "vote Democratic, not out of any love for abortion rights or progressive taxation, but because he feels—in fact, he knows—that the modern-day GOP draws on the support of people who hate him." He could draw on plenty of evidence for said proposition. Not least the immense amount of resources that Republicans still invest in preventing blacks from voting through creative and transparently racially-driven means, ranging from voter ID laws through laws against voting by convicted felons. These laws address no meaningful public policy problem. Black people (and millions of white people) perfectly well know what these efforts are intended to accomplish. And they know who is behind them.

I enjoy cock in many shapes and lengths. Mmmmm...cock.

Second, Voegeli is admirably willing to admit that "The single most disturbing thing about Buckley's reactions to the civil rights controversies was the asymmetry of his sympathies—genuine concern for Southern whites beset by integrationists, but more often than not, perfunctory concern for Southern blacks beset by bigots." There has been major progress in civil rights since then. But there are still major problems -- as is made clear by the plentiful research that the same resume which gets white people an interview does not get black people an interview, and that rentals which were available on the phone to white-sounding individuals suddenly and systematically disappear when a black man in a suit arrives to look at them. However, in discussing hiring and affirmative action, Voegeli can worry about the "Myriad decisions in a million situations—such as job interviews, college applications, and training programs—need now comply with federal "standards" that are rarely clear or constant, and are always subject to further revisions driven by perpetual interest-group lobbying," but still not find time for the very real injustices these laws imperfectly attempt to remedy. In this, he (and even the best elements of his "movement") sadly continues to walk in Buckley's shoes.

This is so true. I am a liberal who tends to oppose affirmative action, especially when it gets away from a specific remedy for specific acts of discrmination and becomes a generalized diversity program. But I can't stand conservative rhetoric on the issue, even when I agree with the ultimate conclusions, for precisely this reason. Way too many conservatives really do act as if the only racism in America comes from black civil rights leaders, that Al Sharpton with no governmental authority is worse than Bull Connor with his dogs or Gov. Faubus with his police officers, and that affirmative action is a great outrage and violation of Dr. King's teachings but any claim of discrimination by a minority group is either nonexistent, overstated, or is invalid because the discrimination is rational and justified.

And that exactly is how Buckley was in the 1950's and 1960's. He could sympathize with the whites who felt aggrieved. He couldn't begin to sympathize with the blacks. And this attitude, which persists, makes it very hard to make real progress on race relations.

(More here: http://dilan.blogspot.com/2008/07/jesse-helms-matthew-yglesias-has-bunch.html )

Oh, Jesse, someone should've given that man a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in...

You know the rest, right?

I'm from North Carolina, and I'm just glad we can finally close the book on this particular chapter. Honestly, I kind of thought he was already dead. He's been awfully quiet. But now that the N&O (Raleigh paper) has run about 16 pages on him with no sign of stopping any time soon, I can see now that his death would not have passed unnoticed.

So, in that spirit, I say: Okay, Jesse, you've passed on, and about the most I can say about you is that people who met you said you were a gentleman and your wife was charming. And with your passing may we lay to rest the outdated, racist, reactionary, negative, obstructionist politics you brought, that so embarrassed my state that kept voting for you by about 50.1%. I hope that this fall we will do our penance to the nation and elect Barack Obama, and I only wish you were around to see that.

If you read the magazine profiles of him you can remark two aspects of the description: courtly manners

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie!

Oh, but I guess Jesse Helms was, now that I think about it: towards minority women who he felt had no place in Congress, among their "betters."

Courtly manners, indeed. I must not have clipped the Miss Manners article where she gives her approval to racist taunts.

"Affirmative Action was devised as a means to give Blacks 'a piece of the pie'...."

--Indeed so it was, when the outgoing Johnson administration came up with the idea. Nixon could have just quietly shelved it, but Republican strategists came up with the ingenious idea of warping it to their own purposes. All of this was set down unambiguously in memoranda, position papers, and other documents that historians have mined to good effect. (See the book, "Nixon's Piano" for a good example of recent sound scholarship on these issues.)


"Remember, there was a great deal of radicalism afoot back in 1970 and the Nixon administration was afraid that the Civil Rights movement might well become a wedge for full-bore Marxism."

--Nixon, alas, was prey to many fears--most of which were only in his mind, to the detriment of the country it turned out.


"I don't think anyone thought AA (that is affirmative action--my note) would fan racial resentments..."

As it happens, we know what the architects of these policies thought (to the extent that another's thought can be known), because they took time to document their thinking and discussions on the subject. And yes, the record shows that they knew--and intended--that these policies should "fan racial resentments" ('good guys' like George Schultz very definitely included). If left-liberals could be fooled into going along with their own disembowelment, then so much the better.

This subject seems to pain some conservatives like a ill-fitting shoe, perhaps because they know better.

but Republican strategists came up with the ingenious idea of warping it to their own purposes. All of this was set down unambiguously in memoranda, position papers, and other documents that historians have mined to good effect. (See the book, "Nixon's Piano" for a good example of recent sound scholarship on these issues.)

A helpful description of Nixon's Piano is provided by Booklist:

The author "maintains that a 'Southern strategy'--'a belief that presidential elections can be won only by following the doctrines and rituals of white over black'--has been 'the . . . organizing principle of American politics' ever since the Constitutional Convention compromised with slavery. {According to the author}, only Lincoln and LBJ stand as exceptions: despite the former's 'white supremacist caveats' and the latter's 'surveillance state,' these two presidents truly improved African Americans' status and opportunities." (Booklist) Index.

One might suspect that the author's 'sound scholarship' is a manifestation of his premises.

Third, Voegeli is wise enough to note that many blacks, who might be instinctively conservative, "vote Democratic, not out of any love for abortion rights or progressive taxation, but because he feels—in fact, he knows—that the modern-day GOP draws on the support of people who hate him." He could draw on plenty of evidence for said proposition. Not least the immense amount of resources that Republicans still invest in preventing blacks from voting through creative and transparently racially-driven means, ranging from voter ID laws through laws against voting by convicted felons. These laws address no meaningful public policy problem. Black people (and millions of white people) perfectly well know what these efforts are intended to accomplish. And they know who is behind them.

Blacks know no such thing, because it is false. Ballot security is of concern wherever ballots are taken, and the quality of the electorate is not enhanced by lacing it with people whose most salient characteristic is holding up convenience stores. Whatever insults the late Mr. Helms directed at blacks, it is difficult to imagine that he would publicly identify the interests of blacks-as-a-class with the interests of felons-as-a-class, or suggest that blacks were somehow incapable of earning and remembering to carry a drivers' license. 'bcamarda' evidently has no compunction about doing so.

Artie Deco says: "Blacks know no such thing, because it is false. Ballot security is of concern wherever ballots are taken, and the quality of the electorate is not enhanced by lacing it with people whose most salient characteristic is holding up convenience stores. Whatever insults the late Mr. Helms directed at blacks, it is difficult to imagine that he would publicly identify the interests of blacks-as-a-class with the interests of felons-as-a-class, or suggest that blacks were somehow incapable of earning and remembering to carry a drivers' license."

Artie's talking out of his ass here, as usual. The recent Indiana voter suppression statute, for instance, has noting to do with "ballot security." There was no history of voter fraud there to address. The law is quite nakedly designed to make it more difficult for poor black people to vote.

Poor Artie is incapable of being honest about such matters.

To add to what MoeLarry says, many do claim, as Art Deco does, that the quality of the electorate isn't enhanced by lacing it with people whose most salient characteristic is holding up convenience stores, but one shouldn't be surprised if, having taken that position, the groups whose power will be disproportionately diminished by the disenfranchisement of felons will tend to see your movement as a threat to their interests and vote against it.

Dilan,

Is it your contention that disfranchisement of felons is some sort of novelty? That has been the law in New York throughout my lifetime. Clayton Cramer makes reference here to a Connecticut statute enacted in 1816 (see http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html). It is weirdly anachronistic to apprehend it as some sort of latter-day plot by the Republican Party to screw the blacks. And it is a penny-ante inconvenience to be asked to show one's identification at the polls. It is a reasonable inference that the objectors are not being forthright with you, or perhaps are not being forthright with themselves.

I have a suggestion. Replace any lifetime prohibitions on suffrage with a prohibition for a term of years which is calculated as a multiple of the statutory sentance. That way people 'amortize' their disability through clean living.

I doubt you will find a large number of people with felonious pasts who take any interest at all in public affairs. You will find a larger number of people whose exercise of the suffrage is frustrated by the institutional architecture of American politics: the first-past-the-post electoral systems, the extreme fragmentation of local government, the archaic and byzantine tax systems, the rococo web of intergovernmental transfers, the officious judiciary, the utter failure of our news media to report on the activities of state legislatures, and the near ownership of legislative seats by incumbents (with the blessing of outlets like The New York Times). Complaints about the absence of suffrage for felons is trivia.

It should have been clear to a senator soon enough that AIDS was affecting people other than gays and drug addicts,

Actually, for the most part in the U.S. it wasn't, at least it wasn't after we started screening blood donations for HIV.

Art, you really miss my point. I understand both the historical pedigree and claimed justifications for disenfranchising felons.

What I was saying is that if your movement argues that felons should be disenfranchised because they don't contribute anything constructive to the voting pool, and that disenfrancisement has the EFFECT of diluting African American political influence, you shouldn't be surprised when blacks decide to vote for the other party at the polls.

That's not really a comment on whether it is historically justified or right on its merits (though I do tend to think that, in fact, felon disenfranchisement is wrong), but is rather a response to your claim that "blacks no no such thing, because it is false". Blacks vote rationally for the party that favors the programs that they believe help their community and opposes the programs that they believe hurt them. That party used to be the Republicans. Now it is the Democrats. And you have every right to push felon disenfranchisement, if that is what you really believe in. Just don't expect many blacks to vote for you if you do.

WAKE-UP CALL FOR THE HELMS FAMILY

RALEIGH - Negroes mixed with whites, carrying the coffin of
segregationist-icon Jesse Helms into funeral-services, was too much
for Barry Hackney. Hackney, a life-long segregationist and Helms
admirer, observed that it was "not worth the gas" to go to the event.
Vice-President Dick Cheney, himself a one-time segregationist,
delivered an indignity of his own by bringing a Negro into the
ceremonies. The Helms family had chosen Mitch McConnell, a
"moderate," to officiate. McConnell said nothing about Helms' fight
against integration, much less to praise Helms for it.

There were many leading segregationists, young and old, who the
family might have picked, to deliver the eulogy. Senator Harry Bryd,
who Helms had once called one of his most-admired friends, although
in his nineties, is still campaigning against the Voting Rights Act. He
could have been asked. Congressman Bill Dickinson, an unrepentant,
Alabama segregationist, could have filled the pulpit. Robert "Tut"
Patterson, founder of the White Citizens Council, who still writes
newspaper-columns, would have been another fortuitous choice. They
were, also, all of Helms' generation.

But, there were others, much younger, who might have been chosen,
to point out that the Helms' legacy carries on. Hackney, who defeated
the Texas Human Rights Commission, would have been a suitable
choice. Rob Dorgan, who carried on the fight against King Day, could
have been another. And, the family might have taken a cue from
mourners at the funeral of staunch-segregationist Louis Hollis.
The funeral-arrangers had engaged Negroes to carry the coffin.
Family-members relieved them, on the spot, and carried the casket,
themselves, saying that "it was the least we could do."

Helms progeny could have, also, repudiated the ghosted and skewed
memoirs, in which Helms, who once whistled "Dixie" in an elevator, to
annoy Carol Moseley-Braun, was "whitewashed." Helms had
forewarned, in his prime, "It is time to face honestly and sincerely the
purely scientific statistical-evidence of natural racial-distinction in
group intellect." His mentor, Willis Smith, had sounded the alarm,
"White people, wake up, before it is too late." However, the book,
published after Helms had acquired dementia, claims, "I did not
advocate segregation." There still is waking up to do.

http://www.nationalist.org/news/flashes/2008/070901.html
Copyright 2008 The Nationalist Movement

Dilan,

You and I have discussed in the past what we thought were some of the sources of the distribution of partisan allegiance in different racial groups, with no real resolution In response to your ultimate point, I will offer the opinion that only a modest minority of the electorate will actually vote the issues; 'rational' voters are atypical, in part because of the costs involved in obtaining the information to be 'rational' in the same sense you might be when doing something more immediate to your welfare, like purchasing an appliance.

There is a distinction between what people know, and what people fancy, and you may be correct in your assessment of public opnion in black populations; it is just that that is not of interest to me now. 'bcamarda' says as follows

He could draw on plenty of evidence for said proposition. Not least the immense amount of resources that Republicans still invest in preventing blacks from voting through creative and transparently racially-driven means, ranging from voter ID laws through laws against voting by convicted felons. These laws address no meaningful public policy problem. Black people (and millions of white people) perfectly well know what these efforts are intended to accomplish. And they know who is behind them.

'bcamarda', with supreme self-confidence, offers these factual assertions and insists that the broad mass of the black population 'know' them to be true. It is, in all truth, tommyrot, without regard to whether 'bcamarda' or Mr. Washington of Bed-Stuy are willing to give it credence.

'Vindicator' offers the view, which he attributes to a professor at the University of Alaska, that Dr. Shultz and Mr. Nixon cooked up the Philadelphia Plan to stoke racial resentments which would then benefit the Republican Party. Aside from the question of how large a share of the public was even aware of the Plan, one would have to presume Mr. Nixon thought his operatives astonishingly deft if he supposed that the political party repsposible for generating the irritation would then be able to benefit from the backlash. It takes quite a bit of intellectual jujitsu to find this plausible.

If one wants to critique Jesse Helms, one ought to remember that people are not reducible to their political views (even if you have characterized them correctly). 'Politician' was only one of the many roles he had in this life. And if one wants to understand American political life, it helps to be grounded in facts and logic, best one can, and one can do better than the above.

Artie Deco writes: "If one wants to critique Jesse Helms, one ought to remember that people are not reducible to their political views (even if you have characterized them correctly). 'Politician' was only one of the many roles he had in this life. And if one wants to understand American political life, it helps to be grounded in facts and logic, best one can, and one can do better than the above."

Almost every American politician of his generation did better than Jesse Fucking Helms did, so fuck him and those - like Artie - who defend him now.

I understand Hitler was nice to dogs. Helms was nice to pages. For some reason neither of these traits impress me much. And of course I'm not saying Helms was as bad as Hitler. He was just as bad as Bull Connor. No, wait, he was worse than Bull. Let's put him between Bull and Goebbels, and be glad the piece of shit is dead at last.

The Best service Jesse Helms will have committed for the American people will be his funereal service. He has been nothing but a stain on the state of North Carolina and American politics. He's a very big part of the black eye that America will wear many millenniums. He was a corrupt payoff senator on the take from the tobacco industry, he was a racist bigot who fought tooth and nail against civil rights. Only other pathetic racist inferior cowards would endorse this blowhard tyrant as a great American. He represented and supported all that America is ashamed of. Because of politics Jesse Helms supported America has a blemish it will never live down. Now that the likes of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond are buried (Thank God) I hope that the brotherhood, love, peace, and camaraderie that America seeks to come together as not only Americans, but human beings can be achieved. Goodbye and good riddance Jesse Helms, I hope you're enjoying your eternal resting place frying like the fat fish faced flounder you are in the skillet of the devil