The Donald Sterling Scandal as a Minority Outreach Case Study

Avatar

Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

147 Responses

  1. Avatar zic
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m wagging my finger with Kareem on this one.Report

    • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to zic
      Ignored
      says:

      Note that Kareem is actually rebutting Tod’s post.Report

      • Avatar Patrick in reply to Jim Heffman
        Ignored
        says:

        I don’t think Kareem mentions anything about politics, the GOP, or the dynamic.

        In fact, I don’t think Kareem’s is talking about anything like what Tod is talking about.Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Jim Heffman
        Ignored
        says:

        I completely disagree.

        His point is not that Sterling shouldn’t be punished by the NBA, it’s that the punishment is too late and for the wrong reasons. It’s exactly Tod’s argument; when you let racism stew, when you tolerate it with a wink and a nod, it comes back to bite you in the ass.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Jim Heffman
        Ignored
        says:

        His name is Roger Murdock.Report

      • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to Jim Heffman
        Ignored
        says:

        Tod’s post is “look at what happened to Sterling! It is totally the proper response for this sort of guy!”

        Kareem’s column points out that Sterling has been that sort of guy right from the get-go, and everyone knew it.

        So if the path to inclusiveness is all hardcore “first sign of sin, root-and-branch”, then Sterling is actually a really bad example.Report

  2. Avatar Shazbot3
    Ignored
    says:

    But if conservatives do this, then white people whold hold (conscious or unconscious) racist attitudes won’t vote Republican.

    Racism, Islamophobia anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-science attitudes, sexism and homophobia are the raison d’etre of the republican party right now. If you’re going to give up those things, you might as well vote for Evan Bayh or Nelson or Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama. You know, someone who could be called a traditional centrist conservative.Report

  3. Avatar Shazbot3
    Ignored
    says:

    I mean D’s and libertarians can be homophobic, racist, anti-science, or whatever too on rare occasions.

    But the whole point of American conservatism and the R party is to service these ends. You seem shocked by this.Report

  4. Avatar Jim Heffman
    Ignored
    says:

    Yes, if only prominent Republican figures like Mitt Romney and Scott Brown and Mitch McConnell and Reince Priebus had called for Todd Akin to drop out of the race after his mumblemouthing about rape and pregnancy.

    Oh wait, they all did say that?

    Whatever, they’re still a bunch of old white racist rich men.Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Jim Heffman
      Ignored
      says:

      It saved a lot of time when you used to just cut and paste “bbbbbut racism” to every post.Report

    • Avatar Kim in reply to Jim Heffman
      Ignored
      says:

      Jimmay,
      Why was he in the race in the first place? haven’t they heard of vetting?

      Rule 1: don’t let idiots run in places where they might win.Report

      • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Kim
        Ignored
        says:

        He wasn’t the establishment’s choice. Preventing eligible candidates from running is probably not a good idea.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Kim
        Ignored
        says:

        Will,
        I’m not saying it’s the Establishment’s job to vet candidates.
        The left certainly doesn’t ask the Establishment to vet candidates! ha!

        But someone certainly needs to, or the crazy goes to 11.Report

      • Avatar Saul DeGraw in reply to Kim
        Ignored
        says:

        @will-truman

        That might be true but do you think parties should distance themselves from disreputable candidates who win their primaries? How has the official GOP responded to his tweets?Report

      • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Kim
        Ignored
        says:

        Saul, we’re talking about Akin, who they condemned and tried to chase out of the race.

        The establishment has some culpability, but of a different sort than people talk about.Report

      • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Kim
        Ignored
        says:

        @will-truman is right here, both in his memory of the response by GOP establishment leaders and them still having some culpability.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Kim
        Ignored
        says:

        “We’re looking for candidate who hate Obama, despise liberals, and want to turn back the clock to a version of the 1950s that never actually existed.

        “Hey, where’d all those nutcases come from?”Report

      • Avatar Barry in reply to Kim
        Ignored
        says:

        From what I heard, he was the Tea Party candidate. The GOP base put him up for the office.Report

      • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Kim
        Ignored
        says:

        Akin won the plurality in a mostly three-way primary with 36% of the vote. The other two candidates, one who was kind of the establishment favorite and the other a statewide official, spent most of their time beating one another up and Akin kind of slipped in there with some smart intervention by McCaskill.Report

    • Avatar gingergene in reply to Jim Heffman
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m a bit confused here- what does the Akin case have to do with racism? Although there’s a good deal of overlap between anti-racism and anti-mysogyny, the two are different issues. It is entirely possible for someone to believe that all men are created equal and really mean only men, or for a feminist to entirely discount women of color. Sadly, it’s not even that rare.

      In other words, it’s possible that Mitt Romney, Scott Brown,Mitch McConnell or Reince Priebus could be supportive of women and racist old men. Or the opposite. The two are far from mutually exclusive.

      I’m glad the to see Republicans stand for women- if they continue to do so consistently, they’ll gradually lose their reputation for mysogyny. Tod’s point is that here was a terrific opportunity for them to do the same for African Americans, and they totally whiffed.Report

      • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to gingergene
        Ignored
        says:

        @gingergene “I’m a bit confused here- what does the Akin case have to do with racism? ”

        It doesn’t. It’s just what he posts anytime anyone says anything critical of the GOP.

        Think of it as a catch-all argument that translates as “I know you are but what am I.”Report

      • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to gingergene
        Ignored
        says:

        “Tod’s point is that here was a terrific opportunity for them to do the same for African Americans, and they totally whiffed.”

        Tod’s point is “this is how you deal with unacceptable opinions! With fire, and rains of toads, and barbed flails to scourge the sinner! All must join in the stoning, none can stand aside, there is no middle ground! And if the Republicans would only do this, then they’d get more black people to vote for them!”

        And I’m replying that this is demonstrably untrue.Report

      • Avatar Patrick in reply to gingergene
        Ignored
        says:

        You really do bring a unique context to everything you read here.Report

      • Avatar Chris in reply to gingergene
        Ignored
        says:

        Look, the GOP once got rid of someone for saying something untoward about someone who wasn’t a white male, and black people, Hispanic people, and women still don’t vote for them in droves, therefore it is demonstrably untrue that if Republicans were quicker to distance themselves from racists, they could more easily court the votes of racial minorities and white women. The logic is unassailable.Report

      • Avatar J@m3z Aitch in reply to gingergene
        Ignored
        says:

        Can we do a PPV of Shazbot and Heffman battling this out in a steel cage death match?Report

  5. Avatar Kim
    Ignored
    says:

    Republicans really ought to know that the Left will cheer for them, if they get their heads out of their collective asses. The blogs that provide insightful criticism will get liberal traffic too, even if they aren’t going to agree with them always.Report

    • Avatar zic in reply to Kim
      Ignored
      says:

      Exactly. Bernstein made this point nicely earlier today.Report

    • Avatar Delta Devil in reply to Kim
      Ignored
      says:

      Maybe, but I’m not so sure.Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        @delta-devil can you explain your doubts, please?Report

      • Avatar Delta Devil in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        The left has a material investment in the racism of the right. As long as the right is racist, they get a whole lot of allegiance from a whole lot of people without having to do much for it. There’s also a psychological benefit of having a racist right to contrast themselves with.

        Had the Republicans responded to this like Tod suggests, I would expect to hear about how they’re just mad for saying aloud what they only say in code. Maybe shifting the conversation some other way to stick to the narrative.Report

      • Avatar Saul DeGraw in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        @delta-devil

        This seems to be an another right-wing meme/troop. The left needs welfare and racism to keep people voting for it….

        It never seems to occur to the right-wing or libertarian-wing that many people (including non-welfare recipients) can honestly and sincerely believe that the universal healthcare, regulations that promote safety and security, and other welfare state measures are proper, moral, and ethical purposes for civil government to be engaged in.

        Maybe people don’t believe in that mythic need for “rugged individualism” or every person as a yeoman.Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        Had the Republicans responded to this like Tod suggests, I would expect to hear about how they’re just mad for saying aloud what they only say in code. Maybe shifting the conversation some other way to stick to the narrative.

        Well, that was the funniest thing about Bundy. Near laughed my ass off. But yes, partisans will always spin, it’s a process and there isn’t an end point when it comes to politics.

        I go back to Abdul Jabbar’s point, which is ethical and moral, the wrong was done a long time ago, and this was a disgusting way to make things right. (I worry it reaffirms stereotypes about black women.) It’s not what he said to his mistress that was wrong, however. Normal standards of privacy protected him from behavior that should have been condemned a long time earlier. And he got to buy off his conscience by making donations to the NAACP. I’m glad they took his money, I hope they do good things with it, create a few jobs even, and I agree that Sterling doesn’t deserve an award for assuaging his conscience and trying to buy good will where he’s not owed any.

        But I do wonder if he deserves the consideration of an old person who’s developing dementia; I hope we don’t commit elder abuse on Sterling. And that’s the end of my sympathy.Report

      • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        I have to say, I largely agree with @delta-devil here. Unlike Kim (or Shaz above — or even Saul from a few days ago) I don’t buy into this narrative that the left/bluestate/Dens are “almost entirely free of racism” (or that left racism is “rare,” or whatever descriptor).

        Ta-Nehisi has a great piece today on the difference between ugly racism and (as he calls it) elegant racism that I think is pretty spot on. “Blue” cities are pretty damned steeped in institutional racism, and one of the things the GOP provides for Dems today is the ability to refuse careful self-examination without political consequences. It’s easy not to have to answer to the kind of housing and incarceration issues you yourself are perpetuating (and even creating) when you have Donald Sterlings and Cliven Bundys (or Rush Limbaughs and Todd Kincannons) standing holding up giant signs that say LOOK AT ME I’M A HUGE RACIST!!!!

        I think most white dems believe that minorities love dems and would stick with them forever no matter what. I think the reality is that minorities really hate the GOP, and if the GOP were to ever convince them they could offer a better path to ending white supremacy they would be more than happy to tell the dems to go fish themselves.Report

      • Avatar Delta Devil in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        Saul, I didn’t say or imply anything about welfare or yeoman farmers.Report

      • Avatar Saul DeGraw in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        @tod-kelly

        I agree that there are plenty of racists in the Democratic Party and among Democratic voters and the TNC article is spot-on. The racism I hear a lot in cities can be whites against minorities but it can also be minority groups making racist and derogatory remarks against other minority groups. Asian people saying racist remarks against Blacks and vice-versa which makes things more complicated.

        Perhaps it is separate from racism but it often seems to gobsmack Republicans that people might honestly believe in the welfare state or that people vote for the Democratic Party for a wide-variety of reasons and not just welfare checks. The GOP seemed rather gobsmacked about this at the end of 2012. Someone at NRO had an article that was all about sincere shock over how the Democratic Party uses welfare as heroin or something like that.Report

      • Avatar Chris in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        @saul-degraw , I’m pretty sure what Delta Devil was saying, and he or she can correct me if I’m wrong of course, was that the left (by which I assume he means the mainstream American political left, i.e. liberals/Democrats/”progressives”) has an investment in the “right‘s” racism, not in society’s racism. The contrast between the “left” and the “right,” on this dimension, allows Democrats to get black and Hispanic votes without doing a whole hell of a lot for black people and Hispanic people, simply because the Democrat’s almost completely blank slate contrasts so starkly with the Republican’s failure-covered record, a record that includes no small amount of overtly racist shit (like, say, voter suppression these days).

        I mean, look at Obama on immigration. What has he done? Deport a whole hell of a lot of people, more than his predecessor in fact. He certainly hasn’t done much to help immigrants from Latin America. But he doesn’t openly vilify immigrants, so hey, he looks better than the opposition. And what have the Democrats at state or federal levels done to increase opportunities for black people? I mean, what have they actively done? Do they have to do anything? No, of course not, because Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot every time an issue connected to race comes up. Every single time.

        The best thing that could possibly happen, on a political level, for members of minority groups in the U.S., is for the Republicans to get their act together so that the two sides have to actually compete for black and Hispanic votes. The Republicans show know signs of joining the game, though, so for the foreseeable future, the Democrats can just sit on their asses knowing that when election time comes, they’ll get 90+% of the black vote and 2/3 to 3/4 of the Hispanic vote, and in combination with white women, win more votes than Republicans nation-wide (hamstrung only by gerrymandering, which again, see Republican feet shooting).Report

      • Avatar Saul DeGraw in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        @chris

        Got it and I agree. Sadly I am not sure that is going to happen any time in the immediate future.

        @delta-devil

        I apologize for misinterpreting your pointReport

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        I think @delta-devil is rather spot on. I know people who relish in the right’s boneheadedness on some of these issues. It’s… odd.Report

      • Avatar Delta Devil in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        If I get some time and can fit it into a comment I will tell you all about when my oldest boy came home from school and announced that he decided he was Republican. For a while there was a Bush/Cheney ’04 tacked to his wall. It’s practically a lame sitcom plot that writes itself, but might provide some insight into the relationship or lack of relationship between “conservative” blacks and the GOP.Report

      • Avatar dhex in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        @kazzy

        “I know people who relish in the right’s boneheadedness on some of these issues. It’s… odd.”

        odd? don’t you want to win? (whatever winning happens to be for whichever person)

        there is no god but the sports bar. remember that, and all shall be clear.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        I was certainly hoping the NBA would let the Sterling thing fester until the Warriors knocked out the Clippers. Damn Adam Silver and his sense of responsibility!Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        Chris, Obama actually has done as much as could for immigrants. At least he has done as much as possible that doesn’t involve Congress passing legislation. For instance the DACA program or encourging ICE and DHS to engage in more prosecutorial discretion when it comes with dealing with immigrants. Obama also instituted the I-601A program. This allows immigrants to get their unlawful presence waived while still in the United States and shortens the amount of time they need to wait for an immigrant visa in their own country. Basically you get the visa and waivers approved in the United States, return to your home country and get the actual visa, and come back. It works.

        The real issue with Obama and immigration is anything more concrete is going to require Congressional legislation and that is not going to happen.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        Chris,
        Obama’s ensured that fewer Hispanic slaves get murdered for making trouble (through better law enforcement), at the same time that he’s increasing the number of slaves in America (through Obamacare).

        Call it a wash?

        Delta,
        I remember littlegreenfootballs as one of the places that was giving some serious pushback to the Islamophobic Right. Bear in mind, this is six years later. Good acts like that do give you some competitive advantage (particularly when you’re dealing with liberals, who tend to like to hear other sides of matters, even when they disagree).

        Lee,
        Anyone who champions a law that manifestly creates more slaves hasn’t done everything he can for immigrants. And that’s regardless of whether or not you like Obamacare in general.Report

      • Avatar Chris in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        Kim, quick question, what the fish are you talking about?Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        Chris,
        Obamacare to a large extent is raising the cost of employing people legally. Thus, you’re seeing an increase in illegal employment of all stripes.
        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-20/shadow-economy-shows-joblessness-less-than-meets-u-s-eye.html

        Underground economy has doubled — from 4% to 8% of GDP (starting from around 2008 or so).

        Now, not all of that is outright slavery — a lot of it is entrepreneurs taking money under the table. A lot of it is drugs (and wherever you don’t have a monopsony, it’s silly to call that slavery).

        But you also have the corporations who run on illegal employment, on workers that can be forced to work long hours for little pay (well under our legal minimum) — and workers that can’t leave the job and move to another one.

        And more corporations are moving factories into that category.Report

      • Avatar Patrick in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        Obamacare to a large extent is raising the cost of employing people legally. Thus, you’re seeing an increase in illegal employment of all stripes.

        (starting from around 2008 or so).

        That’s not even a post hoc ergo propter hoc.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        Patrick,
        if you don’t like my sources, feel free to disagree with them.
        Obamacare was not the only reason for an increase in the underground economy, but it was visible from a long ways away (note: not that health care has managed to do anything with the long-term visibility, due to the regs being vague and ill-defined until a lot closer to zero-hour)Report

      • Avatar Chris in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        Kim, you do understand that when people ask you for sources they are asking you for sources confirming or demonstrating what you have said, not something else entirely, right?Report

      • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        @chris
        The best thing that could possibly happen, on a political level, for members of minority groups in the U.S., is for the Republicans to get their act together

        That sentence could basically have ended right there. In fact, you can remove ‘, for members of minority groups in the U.S.’ from that.

        I actually find it incredibly annoying how seriously right-wing nonsense has screwed up the left in this country. 80% of them are running so far to the right they shouldn’t even count as moderates, and all any of them has to do is not do or say stupid things. (The ones that can still get elected, that is. Most can’t, thanks to gerrymandering.)

        The left is the embers of a party. Tiny little flickers somewhere of life, occasionally sparks show up, but they have trouble making it past *the left*. And of course they can’t push the policies past the right, but, dammit, it should be ‘The left has a lot of good ideas and runs into right stupidity, so vote for them.’, not ‘The left doesn’t propose mandatory vaginal ultrasounds, so vote for them.’, which is, incidentally, a bar set *so* impossibly low that it’s astonishing the right appears to have missed it.

        In the war of ideas, it’s like we’re in a footrace, and the left is old and very slow and has been living off fast food…and the right is entering actual corpses. Just sorta tossing them out there at the start, seeing if any of them will roll to the finish line. ‘Winning’ in that scenernio does not actually require new ideas, it just literally requires not being dead and rotting.

        The left needs an actual opposition party. Having an actual opposition party, *even if the left wasn’t currently in charge*, would be better for the left than this nonsense of having to fight the decaying corpse of the right.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Delta Devil
        Ignored
        says:

        In the war of ideas, it’s like we’re in a footrace, and the left is old and very slow and has been living off fast food…and the right is entering actual corpses. Just sorta tossing them out there at the start, seeing if any of them will roll to the finish line.

        Awesome.Report

  6. Avatar Saul DeGraw
    Ignored
    says:

    1. I think the internet has created a decently large (or at least large enough) portion of political ideologists (in both parties) who are addicted to gotcha politics. Research shows that gotcha and outrage bring in more cash and campaign donations than positive news. So something like this is almost too hard to resist.

    2. The Silent Majority theme/meme is a strong one and probably one that it is impossible to break. Nixon and his speech team did conservatives a solid with this phrase. They can always comfort themselves with this belief even when they are in the minority and their ideas are not popular.

    3. Almost all of American politics can be explained by The Paranoid Style in American Politics. The opposition is a shadowy and evil cabal. Your side is the one of Angels.

    4. I’ve been thinking about the future of liberalism and conservatism lately. There are people in the GOP who realize that the current environment does nothing but turn off anyone under 40 from the Republican Party. This is why the head of the Kansas Senate tabled the religious exemption bill. She knew it would destroy the party if it passed and said so. The problem is that the GOP’s death is going to be a very slow one with surges of being in the majority that let them delay the inevitable for a long time. The GOP is almost certain to do pretty well in 2014 for a variety of reasons. None of these reasons show that the public likes GOP ideas but human denial powers are strong and political ideologues are still human. Sasha Issenberg noted in the New Republic that Generation X is much more conservative than the Millennial Generation. I was born inn 1980. This makes me the last year of Gen X or the first year of the Millennial Generation. I have a few theories about why this is true (namely that a good chunk of Gen X was old enough to have warm fuzzies over Reagan).
    Yet this lows the GOP to pick low-hanging fruit and stay on their current path for a long time and kick the reckoning down the road.

    Also despite evidence and research people still think that people grow conservative as they get older, start families, and have kids. I can’t tell you how many people have told me that they think the first mortgage will automatically create a new class of anti-gay marriage, anti-choice, church going Republicans.Report

    • Avatar Kim in reply to Saul DeGraw
      Ignored
      says:

      3) Well, the blackmail certainly doesn’t help with that.Report

      • Avatar Saul DeGraw in reply to Kim
        Ignored
        says:

        Cite an example of blackmail.Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Kim
        Ignored
        says:

        @saul-degraw one of the allegations flying around in this muck is that V. threatened to release the tape as blackmail in response to being sued by Sterling’s wife for a return of marital properties Sterling gave to V. or against allegations of theft (which may be the same property or different property, I’m unclear). I presumes this meant she recorded the tape to blackmail away the law suit or charges.Report

    • Avatar Saul DeGraw in reply to Saul DeGraw
      Ignored
      says:

      @zic

      Okay. That is not what I thought Kim meant by blackmail. There is a seeming tendency in American politics to view everything or almost everything has a Manichean struggle between good and evil. Good is always your side, bad is the opposition. Everything is described in very apocalyptic terminology. If your side is the one that looks bad, you call for a conspiracy.

      Hoffstadter noted that both sides do it but the right seems to be under a never ending lock of it since the post-WWII era.Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Saul DeGraw
        Ignored
        says:

        Usually, it’s good to take @kim literally. She often has the exception that proves the rule in mind. Not always, but often, anyway.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Saul DeGraw
        Ignored
        says:

        Saul,
        I find it’s better to ask who isn’t blackmailed, than who is. The DC Madam was a pretty smart cookie, if you know what I mean? And it’s in a lot of folks best interest to have the folks in DC (at least the important ones, no one’s bothered with Bernie) with a few strings attached.

        Not that these strings are used often, mind you. Sticks and carrots — blackmail’s just the final stick.Report

    • Avatar Barry in reply to Saul DeGraw
      Ignored
      says:

      ” The problem is that the GOP’s death is going to be a very slow one with surges of being in the majority that let them delay the inevitable for a long time. ”

      And they’ve got a lock on a number of state governments, and a much freer hand in voter suppression. That buys a lot of time.Report

  7. Avatar Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    On Tuesday, on “The Five”, they attempted to talk about the ban but ended up whining about the NAACP and their treatment of black conservatives.

    Is there a place to criticize the NAACP? Sure.
    Is there a place to criticize the NAACP’s LA chapter and their relationship with Sterling? Sure.
    Is there a place to criticize the NAACP’s treatment of black conservatives? Sure.

    Is that place when you are handed a softball as Tod describes? Nope.

    But they can’t help themselves. And that is the problem. They don’t see racism as a problem. At least, not as big as problem as they see a group like the NAACP. So when the pinatas fall, they instinctively whack at the NAACP one. Because they just can’t get over how much they hate the NAACP. And if you hate the NAACP — warts and all — more than you hate someone like Donald Sterling… well, you shouldn’t really wonder why black folk vote in the single digits for your people.Report

    • Avatar Saul DeGraw in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      What is the Five?

      I otherwise agree. There seems to be a certain category of man that needs to define masculinity by the lowest common denominator of pseudo-Spartan “toughness”. Said category automatically thinks it is feminine to be liberal and this is bad.

      These guys are cartoons.Report

    • Avatar Chris in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      They don’t see racism as a problem. At least, not as big as problem as they see a group like the NAACP.

      Aaaaand there’s your problem: you don’t see racism as a problem, you don’t get minority votes. You don’t get minority votes, and therefore minority voices in your party, you don’t see racism as a problem. You don’t see racism as a problem, you don’t get minority votes. You don’t get minority votes, and therefore minority voices in your party, you don’t see racism as a problem. You don’t see racism as a problem…

      And so on.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        I don’t even think it’s that. I think if a good conservative put down a decent business in a black part of town, did a bit of community service (tax break!), and had a decent narrative, he could probably get elected. As a Democrat, probably, but still…

        You need to show that you care about black people, and that you know how to help (everyone loves the narrative, I know how to help small businesses because I ran one).Report

    • Avatar Barry in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      “Is that place when you are handed a softball as Tod describes? Nope.

      But they can’t help themselves. And that is the problem. ”

      That’s the point that Tod almost, but doesn’t get. Given an obvious situation, the GOP and the base didn’t see the problem. That’s not just blowing an opportunity, it’s not seeing a problem in the first place.Report

  8. Avatar j r
    Ignored
    says:

    As I said in response to Sam’s post, you are conflating two separate forms of argument when you lump what Julian Sanchez said in with the rest of those fairly boilerplate reactionary responses. Part of the problem lies in the nature of the word victim. We tend to equate being a victim with being not at fault, but it’s not necessarily so. It is possible that Sterling can be the victim of a breach of privacy and at the same time be deserving of everything that resulted from that breach.

    Another fanciful analogy. Let’s say Bob the Bank Robber robs a bank, shooting a teller and two customers in the process, and flees the scene. The police are pursuing, but Bob is about to elude them and escape justice when he crosses the street at a green light and is struck by a drunk driver. It would be a purely factual statement and a correct statement to say that Bob is the victim of a drunk driver, while at the same time we might all think that Bob got exactly what he deserves. To express concern, however, about drunk driving in this context is wholly understandable. In this instance, drunk driving may have done the world a favor, but more often than not it doesn’t.

    In the larger point, you are correct. Many contemporary conservatives only seem to care about classical liberal values in so far as they protect straight, white, Christian Americans. And that is a huge issue with the the contemporary conservative movement. However, someone like Sanchez ought to have enough credibility on the record that you should recognize that he is coming from a different place. Again, the classical liberal/libertarian argument for maximizing privacy and tolerance of intolerable views is not the same as the reactionary/conservative argument for protecting the traditional against the encroachment of the other. If you want to offer a valid criticism against the former, fine, but you should note the difference.Report

    • Avatar Kim in reply to j r
      Ignored
      says:

      In a world where rapes are recorded and posted online, kvetching about this small breach of privacy seems… almost like missing the point. But, in the event that Sanchez has made as big a deal about abuse of privacy in regards to rape as he does in this situation, I will grant that we ought to consider him as beating the same old dead horse, rather than actively supporting racism.Report

    • Avatar Patrick in reply to j r
      Ignored
      says:

      Sterling is certainly a victim of a breach of privacy. Not all the info is in, but it seems pretty likely, anyway.

      That is a conversation to be had. I don’t know that it’s the conversation that needs to be had right now, and certainly it’s… like… the least cogent example of a breach of privacy given the context and the million other examples you could bring to the table.

      So when the tongue clucking comes out about the breach of privacy, it’s kinda hard *not* to see it as an attempt at distraction, even if it isn’t. I’ll give J.S. credit for being consistent on privacy, but… bad timing.Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Patrick
        Ignored
        says:

        The facts of how the recording was made would be interesting.

        She offers to get him more juice, so I assume they were in the same room together, that it wasn’t a phone recording.

        I’ve read that she frequently recorded things for him because he was having trouble with his memory, truth or truthiness undetermined. But if that’s the case, unless she’d signed some sort of contract protecting his privacy, I would have to know CA law to determine if it constituted anything beyond a perceived ethical breech. At some point here, her role as a potential whistleblower might merit examination.Report

      • Avatar Barry in reply to Patrick
        Ignored
        says:

        “Sterling is certainly a victim of a breach of privacy. Not all the info is in, but it seems pretty likely, anyway.”

        This is actually an old story – the wife, mistress or business partner wanted some ‘leverage’. It’s just far easier now.Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to j r
      Ignored
      says:

      Mostly what @patrick says right above, but I’ll add this:

      If Julian’s #1 take away from this whole thing is that we should mind our own bee’s wax, then sure, I give him points for consistency. But I think that *having* that be your #1 take away makes it as likely a candidate for my point as the other things I posted. They all kind of fall into the same category when we’re talking minority outreach: the “Why can’t they just see that my own perspective is so much more better for them than their own” perspective.

      And, ya know, you can run with that as the way to appeal to minorities if you want. Good luck.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        Julian Sanchez is though, imo, uninterested in electing Republicans to any political office. His employers may be interested – more specifically, his employers’ donors – but not Sanchez.Report

      • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        Well, sure.

        If he has no interest in the GOP (or libertarian) candidates winning, then he should knock himself out. So should the other pundits, if they don’t.Report

      • Avatar j r in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        Am I reading this correctly, that your argument against Sanchez is that he isn’t prioritizing correctly and that he isn’t making the “right” points?

        If so, then I guess we are just at a fundamental disagreement. There is always an excuse to downplay individual rights. A commitment to a liberal society is hard, precisely because, there is always something ostensibly more important at stake.Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        @j-r

        There is always an excuse to downplay individual rights.

        My irony meter just went through the roof. Just sayin’Report

      • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        @j-r Am I reading this correctly, that your argument against Sanchez is that he isn’t prioritizing correctly and that he isn’t making the “right” points?”

        No. This post was not intended to be a ranking of what issues should be important to you or to Julian.

        The point of this post — and frankly I can’t believe I could have made it any more clear; it was stated over an over through the essay, it was how it was described in the teaser bulb, it was stated unambiguously in the *title* — was why the right is becoming an caressingly all-white affair and what steps it needs to take in order to become nationally viable in a future that needs non-white votes.

        As for the rest, I don’t know what to say. If a post on the right’s inability to attract and hang onto non-white voters is of no interest to you, then my post will have little interest.Report

      • Avatar Patrick in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        @j-r

        I think you’re mistaking Tod’s post as an observation about what is or is not important.

        I don’t read the post that way. He’s writing about optics, the GOP, and minority outreach. In that context, the breach of privacy isn’t really relevant as anything but a distraction and indeed from the perspective of minority outreach it appears to be exactly backwards.

        That doesn’t mean that privacy isn’t important.Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        @patrick perhaps there’s a nuance missing, I’m not sure how to properly weave the snag I see back into the tapestry, but privacy — Sterling’s privacy — allowed him to get away with racism. It’s not until that veil is ripped away that there’s the tools to hand to address that racism. So while removing that veil might have been wrong, it also revealed a wrong of long standing.

        In context of minority voters, I’d imagine there’s some desire for more veil ripping before support is offered. And I think this frightens conservatives, hence the empty conference room pictured in the OP. The medicine tastes bad.Report

      • Avatar Saul DeGraw in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        @j-r

        There are better hills to die on to make the cause for privacy rights even drug dealers are a better cause than Don Sterling.Report

      • Avatar veronica dire in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        Hey @tod-kelly , can I quote you on this part:

        “The right is becoming an caressingly all-white affair.”

        ’Cause, you know, it’s nice to know that racists are affectionate.

        😉Report

      • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        “was why the right is becoming an caressingly all-white affair and what steps it needs to take in order to become nationally viable in a future that needs non-white votes.”

        Well, I think Sanchez is only a creature of ‘the right’ insofar as he doesn’t subscribe to any of the left of center economic agenda. I also don’t think he has much interest in making the right or libertarianism less of an all-white affair – he doesn’t have much interest in making it *more* of an all-white affair either. He’s simply not, in my experience, in the business of political coalition building, except for getting subscribers to his own pet (not to diminish them) issues, the foremost of which is privacy. (and has been for the near decade I’ve been reading his work)Report

      • Avatar dand in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        as white is defined for demographic and political purposes Sanchez isn’t even white.Report

  9. Avatar Mo
    Ignored
    says:

    Jim Geraghty made almost this exact same point.

    If the Righty world’s primary or loudest response to Sterling is to say, “well, what about Harry Reid’s ‘negro’ comments, huh? Or how about Robert Byrd? You’re all just a bunch of hypocrites!” then some African-Americans may conclude that Republicans are more upset about the hypocrisy of the Left on race than actual racism. They may even be right.

    Report

  10. Avatar Burt Likko
    Ignored
    says:

    The GOP punditocracy and wave after wave of GOP candidates remain in thrall to Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment. This may have been a good thing for the party overall in 1980.

    It’s not 1980 anymore.Report

  11. Avatar Jesse Ewiak
    Ignored
    says:

    Sorry, the real racists are those of us who believe in the minimum wage and public schools.

    http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/04/29/3-policies-that-are-more-racist-than-donReport

    • Avatar Saul DeGraw in reply to Jesse Ewiak
      Ignored
      says:

      Again, the gotcha politics which is about trying to get people to your side without offering them anything. Also ideology as the enemy., I am amazed at how many people just can’t adbide by the minimum wage existing even if it is popular. Everyone seems to think that every hill is a hill to die on.Report

    • Avatar Saul DeGraw in reply to Jesse Ewiak
      Ignored
      says:

      Also buzzfeedification is just as bad as upworthification.Report

    • Avatar Patrick in reply to Jesse Ewiak
      Ignored
      says:

      Wow, that’s a terrible article.

      “Despite more than doubling real per-pupil expenditures since the early 1970s”

      Okay, new rule.

      If you write an article regarding some fiscal something, and you use exactly one measure to show what you want to show, you get hit with a stick. Two and you get hit with a newspaper. Three or more and maybe, just maybe you might have something to talk about.Report

    • Avatar dand in reply to Jesse Ewiak
      Ignored
      says:

      that’s nothing more than a disparate impact argument, the left makes those type of arguments all the time.Report

    • Avatar J@m3z Aitch in reply to Jesse Ewiak
      Ignored
      says:

      @jesse-ewiak

      I know it’s impossible for the left to be racist, but when minority parents ask for vouchers or charter schools because their local schools are failing, and the left tells them that’s not really what they need or want, then Tod’s reference to the “‘Why can’t they just see that my own perspective is so much more better for them than their own’ perspective” seems relevant. And maybe it’s conceivable how somebody could inadvertantly mistake that for racism.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        @jm3z-aitch If public high schools in the inner city were of the same quality as in the exurbs and suburbs, those parents wouldn’t be asking for voucher or charter schools.The problem isn’t public schools, it’s decades upon decades of misappropriation of public funds thanks to the f’d up way we fund schools in this country. For some reason, the public schools get better the more white well-off people are around, just like suddenly, police and fire response times get better once areas of the city gentrify. Should we voucherize police in the inner city as well?Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        @jesse-ewiak

        If public high schools in the inner city were of the same quality as in the exurbs and suburbs, those parents wouldn’t be asking for voucher or charter schools.

        Of course there are parents in the exurbs and suburbs who do prefer to send their kids to private schools. I’m not sure whether you don’t know that, or whether you ignore it for rhetorical convenience, or whether you think minority parents would think differently than white parents.

        The problem isn’t public schools, it’s decades upon decades of misappropriation of public funds thanks to the f’d up way we fund schools in this country. For some reason, the public schools get better the more white well-off people are around,

        Yes, but what’s your real priority, public schools or good education for minority kids? Because as long as vouchers and charter schools are a political reality and better low-income public schools aren’t, you’re effectively holding minority kids’ education hostage until you get the solution you want. I support better public schools, too, but I think you’re wicked to do so. I’m not using “wicked” lightly, because you are both substituting your white middle class judgement for that of the low-income minority parents and making the substantive education of their kids secondary to the method by which it is delivered.

        Should we voucherize police in the inner city as well?

        No bad argument is complete without an obvious strawman.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        @jm3z-aitch Actually, there’s plenty of evidence to show that the only thing charter schools and vouchers do is send public money to private origanizations who profit. Most of the “success stories” of various charter and voucher programs could’ve been just as successful in public schools.

        But, I’m not going to get into an argument over this. I’m a social democrat. I don’t believe we should be profitizing and privatizing the common good simply because there are areas of policy that aren’t working well.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        Actually, there’s plenty of evidence to show that the only thing charter schools and vouchers do is send public money to private origanizations who profit.

        “the only thing.” That is, of course, utter nonsense.

        Most of the “success stories” of various charter and voucher programs could’ve been just as successful in public schools.

        Settign aside the fact that you just rebutted your previous claim, yes, “could.” But weren’t. So by all means let’s not allow success to happen where it has, but not allow it and keep hoping that eventually it happens where we want it to.

        And all those kids in the meantime who get the lousy education while they’re waiting for us to make those success stories happen in the classroom? That’s solely the conservatives’ fault right? You social dems don’t bear any guilt at all just because you’re holding little kids hostage to your preferred forms.

        I’m a social democrat. I don’t believe we should be profitizing and privatizing the common good simply because there are areas of policy that aren’t working well.

        Thank you for so clearly supporting my claim that you care more about the form of education than the substantive outcome.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        James,
        fire your overlords. then we’ll talk.
        I don’t particularly appreciate stalking horses.

        Jesse,
        Hyperbole much? There are good charter schools, where schoolteachers are parents, and put all their heart and soul into making an awesome place to go to school.Report

      • Avatar J@m3z Aitch in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        And who would my overlords be, Kim?Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        James,
        Kochs and their ilk. Folks more interested in not paying taxes than having an educated populace. I know that’s not your intent — I trust your motivations. Sadly, it’s real easy to see how one can get to a system where the only children taught well are in British-style public schools (just keep on cutting the vouchers — if the Republicans can cut the VA to the bone– and beyond, I’m pretty sure they can cut funding for poor children).Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        @kim

        And how are they my overlords?Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        James,
        on this issue, they’re the ones influencing the politicians through monetary donations, and influencing the public through sheer propaganda.

        If you can design a system of charters — or other more flexible schooling, and manage to keep the blatant embezzlers (ask for cite, if needed) and the people who aren’t genuinely interested in better education from convincing the “better” folks that the poor are either Unhelpable or Being Helped Too Much, I’m seriously game.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        @kim

        they’re the ones influencing the politicians through monetary donations, and influencing the public through sheer propaganda.

        I’m not a politician, so you are claiming that I only support vouchers and/or charters because I’ve been propagandized by the Kochs?

        Is that your claim?Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        James,
        not really. And even if I were to be claiming that, it’s not their current propaganda that I find dangerous — it’s the stalking horse for far more nefarious stuff later.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        So then the question remains, @kim, how are they my overlords?Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        James,
        That was just me being cheeky.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        @kim,
        In the hands of somebody with a modicum of talent it might have read as humor.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to J@m3z Aitch
        Ignored
        says:

        James,
        owch. Well, I never claimed to be the comedian in the family.Report

  12. Avatar Michael Cain
    Ignored
    says:

    Not to downplay any of the racist aspects, but couldn’t some of the Republican and movement conservative reaction be credited to their knee-jerk “defend the employer” mindset? It hasn’t been that long since one of their own, speaking to the House Republican retreat, and explaining that the vast majority of the adults in the US want to be employees with a good job, not the employer, and that it might be good to think about policies that worked for employees as well as employers, got a very chilly reception indeed. Some of the attitude was summed up awfully well in the Sterling rant: “I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them?”Report

    • Avatar zic in reply to Michael Cain
      Ignored
      says:

      “I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them?”

      Employees. Wives. Blacks. Minorities. Latinos. Non-Christians. WE give them everything, and they have the gall to whine.

      Not sure there’s a whole lot of difference there, actually. That’s the 47%, you know? The same behavioral habit reflected in several directions.Report

      • Avatar Patrick in reply to zic
        Ignored
        says:

        Yeah, the use of the word “give” in that part of the rant was pretty telling.

        Oh, payment for services is a gift?Report

      • Avatar Barry in reply to zic
        Ignored
        says:

        “Not to downplay any of the racist aspects, but couldn’t some of the Republican and movement conservative reaction be credited to their knee-jerk “defend the employer” mindset? ”

        It all blends together. The master-servant relation ideal, the husband ruling wife relation ideal and the ideal of government being for the purpose of rewarding whites and punishing non-whites (and dissident believers) are all the same thing. Some may emphasize some aspects, but in the end it’s a unity. Read Corey Robin sometime.Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Michael Cain
      Ignored
      says:

      This is possible, though I suspect that the biggest driver is “hey, here’s a guy the liberals don’t like – we should be for him!”Report

    • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Michael Cain
      Ignored
      says:

      @michael-cain
      Not to downplay any of the racist aspects, but couldn’t some of the Republican and movement conservative reaction be credited to their knee-jerk “defend the employer” mindset?

      I suspect that played a roll, also. Not just “defend the employer”, but the actual possibility of NBA players just walking off. Aka, a strike. *plays dramatic chord*

      And there’s Tod Kelly’s possibility, of knee-jerk defense of anyone the left doesn’t like.

      It really was a stupid trifecta: Democrats are criticizing an old rich white guy. They say he was being racist. His employees have threatened to walk off.

      And they leap in saying ‘I’ll save you!’

      They forgot to actually check, at any point, whether this guy was *at all* sympathetic. Or whether what he said was so *clearly* racist that there’s no way to pretend he wasn’t, and in fact everyone already *knew* he was openly racist. Or whether the ’employees’ were, in fact, fricking famous basketball players that people love.Report

  13. Avatar Stillwater
    Ignored
    says:

    I’ll give a shout out to Cleek for being right. Every day.

    Thanks for putting this post together Tod. What a slog, eh?Report

  14. Avatar zic
    Ignored
    says:

    In Sam’s thread, Mark Thompson asked:

    Here’s a question – isn’t the freedom of association also bigger than the first amendment? And wasn’t Sterling directly attempting to interfere with his mistress’ freedom of association rather than simply expressing disapproval of it?

    I’d add a second question, based on the First Amendment: wouldn’t that suggest that V. might also have a right under the 1st to release the speech?

    (And I intentionally posted that question here, not on Sam’s thread, where I’ve met some interesting new people.)Report

    • Avatar zic in reply to zic
      Ignored
      says:

      @mike-schilling rescue me!Report

    • Avatar zic in reply to zic
      Ignored
      says:

      Thank you, @muraliReport

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to zic
      Ignored
      says:

      It seems noteworthy that most of the people making an issue of Sterling’s privacy rights are the sorts of people who tend to think privacy rights were just made up out of thin air.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        I love it when we’re able to dismiss arguments based on the people who are making them without having to actually deal with the arguments themselves.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        Where did I dismiss the arguments?Report

      • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        Meh.

        It seems to me you should be able recognize and point out that people are making specious arguments without dismissing the argument. Doesn’t have to be either/or.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        Where did I dismiss the arguments?

        Where did you address them?Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        It seems to me you should be able recognize and point out that people are making specious arguments without dismissing the argument

        And it seems that the best way to demonstrate that an argument is specious is by addressing the argument rather than the habits, hobbies, and lifestyles of the person giving it.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        To be perfectly clear, I think the privacy issue is a real one (though recent reports indicate Sterling consented to the recording and/or they were released by a third party, not V. herself). If Mr. Sterling’s rights were violated, he should have every opportunity to seek appropriate recourse against the guilty party(s). However, I understand that the NBA is not bound by the same rules/laws that a court of law might be.

        That said, it seems curious — noteworthy, as I originally said — that there seems to be a large overlap between people who are championing privacy rights in this situation but whom in other situations question whether privacy rights even exist. It would be less noteworthy if their position was, say, “Hey… you people over there who always crow about privacy rights… what now?” But that isn’t what I’ve seen. What I’ve seen is a steadfast defense of privacy rights as sacrosanct. Which is a departure from the previous position many of these people have had. The extent to which this represents a disingenuous to their argument, it makes me less willing to engage them in the conversation because I don’t have particular interest in engaging people making disingenuous arguments because it is politically advantageous. Especially if they are motivated by some latent racist leanings.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        If anyone wants to have a genuine conversation about privacy rights and Sterling, I’m all for it.Report

      • Avatar Chris in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        The hypocrisy conversation again?

        It seems perfectly acceptable to point out hypocrisy, particularly in a dialogue, since it speaks directly to the seriousness and good faith of your interlocutor(s). Nothing about doing so defeats their arguments, but it doesn’t seem like it was intended to in this case.

        I mean, it’s pretty easy to say something like, “I think the privacy issue is an important one, but I’m pretty sure that you’re not serious about it, since until this moment you were denying the very existence of a right to privacy.”Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        Perhaps I should frame it this way:

        As someone who believes strongly in privacy rights, I do not see many of the people championing Sterling’s privacy rights as new allies in this fight. I do not consider the fight over given that the “other side” seems to have come around on this particular issue.

        I also haven’t seen anyone argue that Sterling doesn’t have privacy rights.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        Well, I’m fixing to get on a plane.

        I just see this as one of the camel’s noses where, eventually, people will be fired for stuff that they do outside of the workplace. Not just billionaires either. Not even just millionaires. Like, regular workers. Fired for stuff that they say in their own homes.

        Let’s bust out some Mencken:
        “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”Report

      • Avatar Chris in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        Works for me.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        Who are these people denying the existence of a right to privacy who have now suddenly embraced it? (Are they the new people in the other thread?)

        Is there a group of pro-lifers that have just been bussed in to hold signs or something?

        Edit: okay. It’s 9:30. I really have to go.Report

      • Avatar Jonathan McLeod in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        @kazzy’s hypocrisy argument might be valid in the context of Tod’s post. If the people claiming “privacy rights!” don’t really value privacy rights, then there must be something else motivating the argument.

        So, whether the argument is right or wrong, the hypocrisy and duplicity is still (potentially) there. So, if there is reason to believe the defenders might be a tad racist, that their supposed defence of Sterling is shown to be insincere, then they might just be hiding their true, ugly (possibly racist) feelings. I think this touches on the idea of outreach.

        (Note: this doesn’t negate the “privacy rights!” argument; it just gets at the matter at hand.)

        That being said, I don’t know who Kazzy is talking about specifically, so I don’t know whether any claims of hypocrisy are valid. In the OP, Tod namechecks Julian Sanchez, who is a pretty staunch defender of privacy rights in other realms, so I wouldn’t think it’d apply to him.Report

      • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        It’s also worth mentioning that these ‘rights’ are something only *twelve-states* have.

        Requiring all parties to get consent for recording is not some bedrock principle of the US, and in actual fact appears to be more an *anti*-right, something that is more often than not used to keep people from revealing harm done to them or other people. It keeps people from recording law enforcement abuses, it keeps people from recording sexual harassment, it keeps people from recording extortion, etc, etc. There is very little actual benefit to it, all it does is make it harder to prove wrongdoing.(1)

        And, in an purely logical sense, there’s no reason to allow people to *repeat* conversations that happen in private (And no one suggesting we bar that.) and not let them *record* said conversation. Recording a conversation is actually *better* for society, it results in less falsehoods.

        All-party consent laws are just *stupid*.

        I’m not saying this is a valid reason to break the law, but this isn’t an issue of ‘rights’.

        1) And people who are going to record people to *commit* wrongdoing, like commit blackmail with it or forge someone’s voice or whatever, *already don’t follow the law*.Report

  15. Avatar Barry
    Ignored
    says:

    Jaybird

    “Well, I’m fixing to get on a plane.

    I just see this as one of the camel’s noses where, eventually, people will be fired for stuff that they do outside of the workplace. Not just billionaires either. Not even just millionaires. Like, regular workers. Fired for stuff that they say in their own homes.”

    Which the right supports – ‘at will employment’, ‘right to work’. The right very, very rarely has a problem with an employer firing an employee for any reason except for advocating right-wing political or right-wing religious views. I can’t think of a situation where a person was fired for liberal/leftist political or religious views, and the right gave a flying rat’s pattootie (generally they cheer).

    In addition, as has been pointed out, what happened is that Sterling had certain franchise rights, which probably came with certain contractual obligations. That franchise was withdrawn.

    Heck, as Tod pointed out in the original post this was about as free market as we see in today’s society.Report

    • Avatar Patrick in reply to Barry
      Ignored
      says:

      The right very, very rarely has a problem with an employer firing an employee for any reason except for advocating right-wing political or right-wing religious views. I can’t think of a situation where a person was fired for liberal/leftist political or religious views, and the right gave a flying rat’s pattootie (generally they cheer).

      Heh.

      I just see this as one of the camel’s noses where, eventually, people will be fired for stuff that they do outside of the workplace.

      People are fired for stuff they do outside the workplace every single day. People have been fired for things they do outside the workplace for quite some time now.

      Or, in an attempt to be amusing: “the camel’s nose is already on the way out of the tent and his butthole is right in our faces.”

      If you support right to work or at will employment, you support that, implicitly… because you cannot stop each instantiation of injustice in this space with opprobrium (at least, I don’t think you can).

      On the flip side, if you support workplace protection laws you have to admit up front that you’re trying to protect some people and not others, by definition, because the law is not a fine grained tool. Plus, you still can’t stop each instantiation of injustice in this space with the law, either (at least… no, I’ll stick with the absolutism wording on that one).

      So.

      Now what?Report

  16. Avatar DRS
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s always amusing to watch the GOP react to situations like this because they almost always assume the only people who could possibly be offended by racism are those it’s directed again. White or Asian or Hispanic people couldn’t possibly be offended by it, oh Good Flying Spaghetti Monster no!

    Ditto with the birth control stuff in 2012. Whoever came up with the talking point that it’s really Democrats who are anti-women because they assume women are passive victims of their libidos apparently doesn’t realize that many (I’m willing to say most) married women also use birth control. Because after all it’s only immature 20-somethings who date too many guys, right?

    Stupid is a pan-demographic deal-breaker for most people.Report

  17. Avatar Shelley
    Ignored
    says:

    The media find it too easy to focus our attention on a jerk like this and too hard to create some kind of image or handle for the real elephant of evil in the room in this culture–corporations and their power.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *