July 16, 2007

John Edwards' latest brilliant campaign issue: busing!

From Politico:


Sen. John Edwards plans to warn later this week that the nation’s schools have become segregated by race and income, and he will propose measures to diversify both inner-city and middle-class schools. ...

As explained by people who have been consulted about the program, Edwards wants to set aside $100 million to help school districts implement economic integration programs. The money will help finance buses and other resources for schools that enroll additional low-income children.


How clueless do you have to be to try to run for President -- as a purported populist -- as the Busing Candidate?

This isn't just a personal failing of Edwards -- it reflects how out of touch our ruling class has become. It's not merely how rich they are -- the Roosevelts, after all, were extremely rich -- but how political correctness has dumbed them down.

It's widely assumed that political correctness is just polite hypocrisy and that the big shots understand what's really going on even though they aren't allowed to mention it in public -- after all, the Clintons sure didn't send Chelsea to the local public school for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. -- but that's naive. What happens is that political correctness severs the mental connection between private and public thinking.

Everybody knows that they, personally, don't want a whole bunch of inner city kids bused into their kid's school, but nobody is allowed to articulate publicly the reasons why everybody feels that way. Partly, it's self-discipline -- if a public figure ever happened to candidly mention exactly why he sends his daughter to Sweet Briar Country Day School instead of to Malcolm X. H.S., he's toast. So, it's best if he never mentions it in private, either. It could leak out. In fact, it's even better if he never thinks it inside his own head. He might slip up.

So, concepts that can't be articulated publicly aren't, after awhile, even thought anymore.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Steve -- I disagree.

If the thought were not thought, why didn't Chelsea go to public schools in DC? It would have been great photo-ops and so forth. Plenty of security and favorable/fawning publicity (Secret Service would have made it happen).

Political Correctness is not about not thinking thoughts. It's about punishing working-middle class people who might be upwardly mobile and thus a threat to entrenched elites.

Matt Cooper of Time is married to Hillary Clinton's Chief of Staff. The whole Liberal network (of which many/most Republicans also belong) is profoundly threatened by upward mobility. Political Correctness (of which Busing is one) helps keep these folk under the heel of their betters.

Ho Hum said...

So the Democrat presidential candidates are:

Edwards, a populist without the popular touch.

Hilary Clinton, a divisive centrist.

Obama, a race obsessed racial healer.

fifi said...

Princess Edwards vies to be blacker than Obama X. Will he succeed in drawing enough black voters through such a radical tactic without alienating his base? Or will the obvious pandering cause him to crash and burn in a bigger blaze than John McCain - who still doesn't realize he's smouldering in the ashes of his now defunct campaign?

Now that Hillary has a new hairstyle along with some hi-lights, it's possible that she has drawn the hair vote away from Edwards. Unless Obama can develop some cross-cultural appeal, I think Hillary's gonna end up getting the nomination.

Anonymous said...

"So the Democrat presidential candidates are:

Edwards, a populist without the popular touch.

Hilary Clinton, a divisive centrist.

Obama, a race obsessed racial healer."

And in the Republican corner we have:

Giuliani, the tough on crime mayor who loves illegal immigration and is friends with Bernie Kerik.

Mitt Romney, the formerly pro-abortion devout Mormon.

Fred Thompson, the populist, anti-Washington Good Ole boy former DeeCee lobbyist.

Looks like the country is screwed either way.

As usual.

Old Right

Anonymous said...

Steve,

Edwards is trying to win the Democratic Primary. He has to appeal to some fairly leftward folk and many blacks/hispanics to do so.


If Edwards REALLY wanted to shake things up, he'd call for an end to all private schooling and home schooling, and announce cross-county busing with the intent of making sure wealthy kids HAD to go to school with gangbangers. In a very evil way, I wouldn't mind seeing this for about three years to see how far out in the boonies the rich would be having developers building gated communites while insisting that their moves had nothing to do with race. But then again, for the kids sake, I'd be against it........no matter how much fun it would be to see their parents squirm.

Steve said...

This guy Edwards is another Jimmy Carter. He will be a total disaster as president. Another liberal southerner racked with racial guilt. And forget about immigration & terrorism. Edwards will open the door to any Iraqi who wants to come here.

Lysander Spooner said...

The question that should be asked--though it certainly won't be--is thus:

"Mr. Edwards, there is, as we are all well aware, no de jure segregation in public schooling; rather, the segregation in American schools is of a de facto nature, and is the result of self-segregation in housing patterns, which results from, among other things, white flight.

The easiest way to rectify the "troubling" lack of diversity in American public schools--far easier, in fact, than spending $100 million dollars and tearing apart communities--would be to encourage whites to live in black neighborhoods [and vice versa, but let's use whites as an example, as we can assume that, on average, they are in more advantageous financial situations than are blacks and, as a result, are more able to relocate easily] and to send their children to schools that are currently majority black--thus eliminating public school segregation naturally.

So, Mr. Edwards, given the rather obvious solution to the lack of diversity in American schools, which seems to trouble you greatly, why, when it came time for the Edwards family to choose a place to live, did you choose to purchase a palatial 28,200-square-foot home in a region of North Carolina (Orange County) that, according to census data, is 78% white?

Wouldn't it have been more in keeping with your professed political ideology to have chosen to live in an area with a more racially-balanced demographic profile?

Presumably, though, you send your children to a majority black school, yes?

Your daughter Cate, who graduated with honors from Princeton university--that Mecca of black academe--began law school, at Harvard, in the fall of 2006. Are we correct to assume that she will be transferring to the Howard University School of Law sometime soon, presumably to benefit from all the racial and economic diversity that was sorely lacking both at the undergraduate institution where she matriculated and in the circumstances of her upbringing?"

Chief Seattle said...

The presidential field really is discouraging right now. ho hum and anonymous summed it up all too well. The 2008 election cycle hands big advantages to the democrats, and all we're going to get are pro-busing, pro-immigration, pro-stay-in-Iraq sellouts. So discouraging that the election choices are so limited almost a year and a half before an election.

Ron Guhname said...

To be a really good liar, it's best to believe what you are saying.

Anonymous said...

Clearly, Ron Paul is the only choice!

tommy said...

How clueless do you have to be to try to run for President -- as a purported populist -- as the Busing Candidate?

Edwards: The Short Bus Candidate.

Mark said...

Given the pictures I've seen of his new 28,000 square foot home, it doesn't look like Edwards' kids will be going to school with too many blacks, either.

Am I just going out on a limb in suggesting that busing would disproportionately affect the children of conservatives? It seems that liberals solve their minority problems by sending their kids to private schools or establishing "magnet schools" in their districts - or not having kids at all. Conservative whites solve them by moving across town or into an entirely different school district.

Unless the federal government forces districts to merge (and of course they would never, ever, ever arrogate that much power to themselves, would they?) there is little they can do to really force busing anymore.

But mostly I think the nation is fed up with the whole race issue. A clear, solid majority of conservatives and indepedents want it to just disappear. By raising the issue again, Edwards is helping Republicans.

Keep up the good work, Johnny.

Anonymous said...

Chief Seattle -- I would be quite leery about predicting for the Democrats NOW. That's the clueless media, which thinks McCain lost for his support for the Iraq War (which was the only thing keeping him going in the race for Republican voters as opposed of course to Media Support).

Obama will appeal to status-driven yuppies. The kind that turned out for Brokeback Mountain to show how high-status tolerant they are. But that's not a majority.

Note old-line FDR style Liberal Lieberman won handily over Ned Lamont, victory cemented when Lamont had Sharpton and Jessie Jackson with him. Even in Connecticut there are still more working class than wealthy yuppie class scum. So Obama's got no chance.

Shrillary? No Straight guy will vote for her. She isn't going to win either.

Edwards? A joke hanging in there for the VP spot.

Besides Dems will have to deal with issues they can't: Pakistan is sliding into AQ/Taliban control. Musharraf had to use forces loyal to him personally to raid the Red Mosque, and that only after Chinese threats (the Taliban there had abducted and tortured Chinese prostitutes working in Islamabad). As a result he's literally begging the Taliban to go back to the "peace agreement" he signed turning over the NWF. And he's backed down on the Chief Justice thing. He can't send in the Army because they got their ass kicked last time: claimed losses of 700 or so were really more like 3,000-4,000, and it's an open question who's side they'd take.

Zawahari (or bin Laden if he's still alive) in control of Pakistan's nukes? Not an issue that Dems can handle and it may happen far sooner than we think. Like in a month or so. Musharraf just survived ANOTHER assassination attempt which makes it what? Five? Six? You can't be lucky forever.

Then there is Iran. Threatening to hit Israel with missiles. Dems would duck and run faced with what to do about Iran which has made similar threats against the US and Europe. Dithering weakness with enemies intent on killing you with nukes is not attractive to voters.

Fundamentally Dems can't handle National Security because they come from the same deeply feminized and weak elite that fears the military (rivals for power).

Meanwhile real challenges from guys like Osama (who got leadership by car-bombing his mentor) or Zawahari (who's personally killed people) or Ahmadinejad (who the Hostages claim personally tortured them) put premium on non-Leftist/Elitist qualities like experience, toughness, and competence.

It probably helps Rudy the most, followed by Fred (who as an actor has ungodly TV skills -- don't dismiss that, it got Jessie Ventura elected, Ventura as a pro Wrestler understood working the mike to ridicule opponents). Dems bet the farm that nothing National Security would break before the general election. Yet we could have if the CYA stuff leaking out from CIA/DHS is right, another big terrorist attack killing far more than 9/11. I can think easily of ways to kill about 35,000 people or so.

Look here

Money quote: "The U.S. fleet consists of some 6000 aircraft — almost all of which will be parked unattended tonight at a public airport."

Since the Dems are on record for no wiretapping terrorists, Miranda rights for terrorists caught on the battlefield, no Gitmo, "terrorism as the cost of doing business," losing that many people would probably finish them. Regardless of resentment over Bush (who battling Congress over "toughness" on Iraq pushed his rating back up in the 30s). No one likes Bush. But up against Nancy and Harry even he looks better.

Iran, Pakistan falling to the Taliban, another big AQ attack here, a lot of events could make Dems look like Kos-type chumps. Look at China. In the space of the year they went from "cheap stuff" to "kill your pet/poison toothpaste/death tires" brand image and consumers will flee Chinese products.

This election IMHO will be driven by events the media can't see coming (but bloggers and folks like Steve probably will).

I take it back Steve -- you are probably right about PC. It sure shows up in National Security. Shrug I argued myself back to your position.

daveg said...

I really think Al Gore could enter the race in the fall and move into the leadership position.

I would seriously consider voting for Al over any of the current leading crop of D's or R's (except Ron Paul, Tancredo, etc.).

Anonymous said...

It's pretty easy to get out of touch when you are secluded in your own 102 acre estate.

Half Sigma said...

It only hurts his campaign if people remember it, and the other candidates will be afraid to call him on it because they will want to avoid the appearance of political incorrectness.

The haircut angle only hurts him with male voters. All female voters would get a $400 haircut if they could afford it.

Anonymous said...

Independent here...

just read the first paragraph... all I have to see is busing...

I've just ruled out Edwards.

Anonymous said...

A "race obsessed" black man (Obama) is going to be a better president on race issues than a white liberal racked with guilt (Edwards, Clinton), or a white conservative afraid of offending PC folks (Romney, Thompson)

Anonymous said...

That's hilarious. Bad enough that he was already a pro-immigration populist, but this is absurd.

So where are the real populist candidates? I'm not aware of a single one running this time, and I'm unenthusiastic about all of the ones who are. Surely there are votes to be picked up by an actual populist.

c23

Anonymous said...

Why is this surprising? Edwards is a dead man walking into his primary. The money and media have long ago anointed Hussein Clinton as the Dem contender. He’s not even on the radar as a VP running mate this time. Www.intrade.com lists EIGHT other dems more likely to be chosen as the dem VP candidate (e.g. Bill Richardson’s 25/35 vs Edwards 4.5/11 bid/offer).

Edward’s long shot-hope is that Billary and Osama will BOTH self-destruct giving him a shot at the lead. His short term hope is to play the kooky Sharpton/Jackson “I’m a nuttier hypocrite than you are” role in hopes to get any media attention and win some of party extremist that are key in early on. It’s a risky tactic that has caused him to quickly drop from a 20 to 4.5 bid price and his wide bid/offer spread suggests the speed at which he is in free fall.

Josh said...

I tend to agree with the poster that Al Gore will make a late entrance and take the nomination---except that that would be preceived as a direct slap in the face to Hillary,(not to mention the "colored guy"!!) and that could stir up a lot of bitterness,thus depriving Gore of the Good Dad aura that surrounds him and gives him so much of his appeal. So maybe Gore wont come in after all...:0? So who knows...with these 3 current candidates we are looking at a historic moment. The 1st black nominee, OR the first WOMAN nominee...OR maybe Hillary will win..:D

Svigor said...

"To be a really good liar, it's best to believe what you are saying."

Yes. Second-best is to believe you're lying on the side of the angels.

Of course, the water for these fish is political correctness, wherein no one need think too hard about any of the real issues.

PC seems like a modern religion to me...makes about as much sense to me as transubstantiation and the rest.

Anonymous said...

Bussing or not Edwards is not going to win the nomination and he sure won't get the VP again.

Yes, at first glance 2008 prospects look dim for non-liberal voters. But a second look shows BOTH Nader and Bloomberg could jump in to split the Left.

Bloomberg's candidacy especially would be a magnificent gift to the Right. Short, bossy, managerial/doctor types DO NOT get elected president of these United States. A ton of these guys have tried and failed. It's a syndrome. Dean never had a serious chance.

Remember, no mayor of NYC has ever been elected to anything else. That means Bloomberg and Guiliani are VP choices at best.

Ken said...

Mark said...

"Given the pictures I've seen of his new 28,000 square foot home, it doesn't look like Edwards' kids will be going to school with too many blacks, either.


On the contrary, his younger children go to this public school, which is 25% black and 15% Hispanic.

Anonymous said...

Gore isn't going anywhere Daveg.

He suffers from hypocrisy and anti-populism. If he believed what he's saying his electricity bills in his mansion would not run $25,000 a month. Nor would he be running polluting zinc mines.

Ron Paul makes Ross Perot look like a statesman. Tancredo has good ideas but lacks gravitas.

Whichever of Fred or Rudy leads the Reps will probably win, because they seem to understand populism. Which is what it takes to win. A Dem could win if they ran to the right of GWB on being tough with Muslims at home and abroad (and promised to put wood on the Saudis) ala JFK's missile gap. But their need to pander to their upper-class status obsessed moralists and would-bes (Daily Kos lunatics) makes that impossible.

The worst thing that happened was the collapse of the populists in the Dem Party, instead you get upper-class snobs like Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, Carter etc. who depend on moralistic upper-class people (i.e. the "crusading reformer temperance" folks in updated versions) and minority coalitions. It might work in a blue state but is a loser nationally.

Anonymous said...

A Dem could win if they ran to the right of GWB on being tough with Muslims at home and abroad (and promised to put wood on the Saudis) ala JFK's missile gap. But their need to pander to their upper-class status obsessed moralists and would-bes (Daily Kos lunatics) makes that impossible.

I could see Hillary! running on a "missile-gap" platform in the general election.

Her problem is that the longer Hussein Obama remains in the race, the harder she has to tack to port.

She'd rather have the thing wrapped up early, so that she could swing back around starboard, and embrace something really aggressive, like a Muslim "missile-gap" offensive, but BHO is making her life miserable right now.

And in the [admittedly] unlikely event that BHO is at the head of the ticket, and Hillary! is the veep, then it's hard to see a "missile-gap" offensive.

My guess is that BHO at the head of the ticket, in the general election, would be an interminable, insufferable "Can't we all just get along?" Rodney King impersonation.

Luke said...

What's not to like about Hillary? I think you guys are way underestimating her?

daveg said...

Whichever of Fred or Rudy leads the Reps will probably win, because they seem to understand populism.

You don't understand, the Republican Holocaust is coming. Republicans are going to lose in districts that no one ever thought it would be possible for them to lose.

The only reason why hillary won't win in a landslide is that she is not anti-war enough.

People don't give a shit about Iraq anymore. It is not relevant to US interests anymore, nor is Iran.

They just want to get out so that we stop spending money, watching the dollar lose it's status as the worlds reserve currency and American's stop being killed needlessly.

IF the Repubs defect now, and start to get us out before the election, they will recover somewhat. You can see the R's starting to panic already. This ship is not going to hold.

David Davenport said...

You don't understand, the Republican Holocaust is coming. Republicans are going to lose in districts that no one ever thought it would be possible for them to lose.

Please supply some evidence for that.

Anonymous said...

"Musharraf had to use forces loyal to him personally to raid the Red Mosque, and that only after Chinese threats (the Taliban there had abducted and tortured Chinese prostitutes working in Islamabad)."

-anonymous

Really? Where did you get that info?

Not that it surprises me, but so far this has escaped my attention.

The Chinese whores were probably spies if this is true. Torturing them was most likely a form of interrogation, if it happened. As foreign prostitutes, they would have valuable information concerning powerful officials in Islamabad.

Cab drivers and hookers always know what's happening on the street and in the hotels.

Anonymous said...

Daveg -- if you were right, the Dem Congress which is at around 14% would be far higher than the President who is back in the 30's (pretty low mind) by simply running tough on Iraq.

Since the evidence does not support it, you're wishful thinking. Bush after the Amnesty fiasco ROSE by taking on Congress with Iraq.

Yes people DO give a damn about Iraq, in that they don't want it under AQ control to launch a wave of attacks. Which is what the latest NIE (stating the obvious) has estimated. They don't want Iran with nukes since they've promised since 1979 to make their daily "Death to America" a reality. They don't want Pakistan's nukes in AQ hands (which is likely within months not years). People don't want their cities nuked. Patton was right: Americans abhor a loser.

This is not the Cold War. We don't face even state adversaries with rational and "do-able" compromise demands. We face a WAR OF THE PEOPLES which is more insidious, with no borders or boundaries, no one even to surrender to. Much less make a "deal" as the UK essentially did with the IRA and Spain with ETA. Consider the Doctors plot in Britain. People understand there were no "demands" ala the IRA, no "do this easy thing and the violence stops." Doctors set themselves ablaze in a Jeep and drove into the airport terminal, one guy got out and in flames fought with the police and bystanders yelling "Allah Allah."

Anon: Bill Roggio has been blogging up a storm here. Just scroll down and see the full reporting. The 111 Brigade are Musharraf's personal praetorian guard. He's now begging the Taliban to go back to the agreements they just abrogated. Pathetic.

Prostitutes "spies?" No. The Jihadis (blew up a bunch at an Islambad Courthouse today with suicide bombers, who have not been seen before in Pakistan) want Pakistan cleansed of "foreign influences" including China which is Pakistan's traditional ally (against India). A jihadi at Gitmo was released to Pakistan and killed a Chinese Engineer working a Hydro project. That jihadis in Pakistan would challenge CHINA which shares a border with them, has a huge manpower military (with the need to use it) and is filled with an angry nationalism (if you've been in Beijing this isn't news) ought to scare the hell out of everyone. AQ and the Taliban have essentially picked a fight with China in Pakistan. That isn't the mark of weakness.

Agreed that Prostitutes know "a lot" but why pick a fight with CHINA over it when the American Embassy or other US targets can be more convenient and embarrassing for Musharraf? Jihadis have blockaded the border with China. They remind me of a more organized General Butt Naked in Liberia.

daveg said...

Look at any poll. Support for the Iraq war is dismal. That is why Republican senatorsa are starting to move against the war ALREADY. Sure that movement is soft right now, but it will firm up in the fall. Just watch.

Look at Republican vs Democratic fund raising at the congressional level. The dems are killing the Republicans at the senate and representative level. Republicans are not popular with their base right now, except for the kool-aid crowd and the Israel firsters.

Also, 21 of the 33 senate seats up for election next year are Republican. So, R's have much more ground to protect.

Look at how the senate doesn't want to allow an up or down vote on whether the war will end. The don’t want this vote because they know the anti-war folks have more that 50 votes and/or they don't want to expose the weak republicans to such a vote. Such a vote will not be popular.

Also, look what happened in the last election, and the war was still somewhat popular then. Since that time it has become less popular.

The dems in congress are not popular because they are NOT getting us out of Iraq fast enough.

And we see that in "[t]he latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that nearly a quarter of Republicans are unwilling to back top-tier hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain or Mitt Romney, and no one candidate has emerged as the clear front-runner among Christian evangelicals."

You don't have 25% select none-of-the-above without big problems.

Ohio is going to go democrat next year and once Ohio switches the R's may never recover. It is very hard to switch these states back once they go D.

The neocons are leading the Republican party to ruin. They didn't help us get into the majority, but they are now helping us out the door.

daveg said...

Here is what you bought us, neocons, Israel firsters and their kool-air drinking lackies:

Christians in Iraq, including converts from Islam and people involved in mixed-faith marriages, are being crucified by Muslim terrorists, according to a Dutch member of Parliament studying the war-torn country.

Several Iraqi Christians "are nailed to a cross and their arms are tied up with ropes. The ropes are put on fire," Joel Voordewind told BosNewsLife, an online news agency focusing on Christians and Jews in difficult circumstances.

According to the site, Voordewind described how a person, who "survived" a crucifixion, "even showed holes in his hands," apparently from nails.

Voordewind said victims of the crucifixions are "in most cases Christian converts who abandoned Islam or people who, religiously speaking, are involved in mixed marriages."


But Bill Kristol says it was all worth it!

WND

I really hope you all rot in hell.

beyond the pale said...

Hair so shiny Edwards could be the next Breck girl, Busing to integrate the masses once and for all, and now, a showdown with Hilary over who has the most estrogen...

I think Edwards is coming out as the first intersex candidate.

daveg said...

Ok, I had a couple of glasses of wine and spoke harshly, but fact is this was an elective war based on known false information.

Those who elected to undertake this war are responsible for the all foreseeable results, results that many predicted from the beginning.

Many many people have died and suffered because of this unnecessary, and in the end, useless war.

For those sycophants who still don't see how much you have paid for the war of others, I can only hope you wise up.

Brian said...

One in four Israelis are dodging the draft. Should we be so willing to "settle" the Middle East if they are not?

One in four Israeli men eligible for national service last year dodged the draft, the highest proportion in the history of the Jewish state.

Figures released yesterday by the Israeli Army showed that in the 2006 intake, just 75 per cent of eligible men joined up. The figures date from before last year's Lebanon war, widely viewed in Israel as a failure, and there are worries that this year's numbers could show an even greater rate of non-participation.


Maybe they are just confident that the US will take care of things for them. Why put their lives in danger when the dupes from the united states will do it for them?

Anonymous said...

"Maybe they are just confident that the US will take care of things for them. Why put their lives in danger when the dupes from the united states will do it for them?"

Yeah, Brian, that sounds about right: only three fourths of Israeli 18 year olds enlist (as compared to what, 1/10th of 1% of ours?) because they think we are going to send ground troops to invade Lebanon for them next time Hezbollah starts launching rockets at Israel. Because those Israeli draft-dodgers know how eager America is to fight ground wars in the Middle East after the last four years of Wilsonian idealism in action in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

How does a comments section about Edwards' busing proposal end up forehead-deep in Israeli minutae?

Probably the same way the US ended up thus.

Busing? "The question is, how does this affect Israel." Hillary's flashes de hot? "The question is, how does this affect Israel." Toothpaste? "The question is, how does this affect Israel."

Israel, Israel, Israel.

All day long.

There should be a pool on how many comments at iSteve before Israel, the Holocaust, or Hitler is raised. Bonus points for gefiltefish.