Fox News is paying millions to help a straight up white supremacist spread his radicalizing vitriol. The only thing missing is a hood or swastika. But the words and hysterical delivery are just as potent. This is a hate group operating openly on a national level. https://t.co/ySfaqxEOOD— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) April 9, 2021
Friday, April 09, 2021
The Name Of The Game Is Control
Althought Tucker Carlson often is slammed as a "racist," his commentaries are less often informed by racial bias that partisanship.
Carlson is funamentally hyper-partisan; not compared to Sean Hannity or even Laura Ingraham, yet far more than allowed by the image of one dedicated to standing up for the beleagured white majority. On April 8, he remarked
.... where the government shows preference to people who have shown absolute contempt for our customs, our laws, our system itself and they're being treated better than American citizens. Now I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term "replacement"; if you sugggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World. But they become hysterical because that's what's happening actually. Let's just say it- that's true.
With few exceptions, the only people using the term "replacement" are the people who are complaining that people are using the term "replacement." Unfortunately, he continues
If this was happening in your home, if you were in the sixth grade, for example, and if without telling you, your kid- your parents adopted a bunch of new siblings and gave them brand new bikes and let them stay up later and helped them with their homework and gave them twice the allowance they gave you, you would say to your siblings "I think we're being replaced by, by kids that our parents love more. And it would be kind of hard to argue against you because look at the evidence.
I don't know what preceded or followed this rant. However, the supporters of immigration rights are not advocating that immigrants be granted increased rights, privileges, or new bikes but a path to citizenship, which would render them eligible for the same- not increased- benefits as others. Some recommend mere legalization (against which I've vociferously argued). At the extreme, in a few jurisdictions (such as California), privileges already conferred upon citizens and legal immigrants are being conferred upon illegal immigrants.
But now Tucker finally gets to the real issue when he maintains
So this matters on a bunch of different levels but on the most basic level it's a voting rights question. In a democracy, one person equals one vote.
Well, no, it doesn't, in part because this is a republic, not a democracy. In 2018, Democrats failed to gain control of the lower legislative chambers in three states while winning a majority of votes statewide. One of those states was North Carolina, in which Republicans won 10 of 13 seats in the US House despite losing the statewide vote.
Over in the other federal chamber, North Dakota has 770,000 residents and two Senators while South Dakota has 897,000 residents and two Senators. They are granted four senators, reliably Republican and conservative, for 1,667,000 individuals. California has nearly 40 million residents and two Senators, fairly reliably Democratic. Thus, there is one Senator for every 416,750 individuals in the Dakotas and one for every 19,806,750 individuals in California. If it's one man, one vote in the Dakotas, it's 47 men, one vote in California.
And then there is the race for the presidency, in which the Democratic nominee won the popular vote in 2000 and 2016 but lost in the Electoral College, leaving the nation with two individuals who turned out to be disastrous presidents.
Still, Carlson continues with
If you change the population, you dilute the political pwer of the people that live there. So every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter. So I don't understand, what you don't understand, is everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it and ooh, the white replace theory- no, no, no. This is a voting rights question. I have less political power because they are importing a brand new electorate. Why shouldn't I sit back and take that? The power that I have as an American guaranteed at birth is one man, one vote and they're diluting that. No, they're not allowed to do that. Why are we putting up with this?
Now people are imported goods who don't come to this country to escape tyranny or extreme poverty and hunger but because "they (presumably Democrats) import a new voter" continuosly. Carlson won't tell his audience that these imports can vote only once they go through the arduous process of becoming a citizen, a full-fledged American because it would disabuse it of the ignorance he depends upon.
Voting rights is an issue, the main (if not only) issue uniting the party pols with the party faithful. Ingrained in GOP voters is the myth that once an immigrant, legal or illegal, enters the country, he or she gets to vote. Do not pass go; just vote. Thus, most of those voters want immigrants to stay put in their native countries while most of the party's officeholders and office seekers are fine with immigrants coming as long as they don't gain citizenship, thus the right to vote.
Many Republicans believe, as Tucker is claiming, that every immigrant who votes further disenfranchises him and others like him. But they are not being disenfranchised. They are competing with other Americans and, in some instances, actually cooperating with them in electing a Republican to office.
The electorate always is changing. Carlson rails against a "brand new electorate," though every individual of every ethnic group becomes a new part of the electorate once he or she turns 18 and registers to vote (which should be made far easier).
The Republican Party could compete for these voters but for the most part chooses not to do so. Competition is the key, just as the left should compete in the marketplace of ideas rather than trying to shut down Carlson or other right-wing voices. If you wish, however it might annoy persuadable voters, call Tucker Carlson "anti-semitic, racist, and toxic" or a "white supremacist" with "a hood or swastika." Surely, his appeal is not to brotherhood or a generosity of spirit. Nonetheless, his aim is not to bring back the Ku Klux Klan but to shrink the electorate for eletoral gain. It is less for racial hegemony than for Republican hegemony.
Meghan McCain makes a few easily rebuttable claims in this excerpt about abortion in one of the episodes of The View. At the outset, she ma...
In April, President Donald Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron "why don't you leave the EU?" The same month,...
Marco Rubio, perhaps best known for publicly debating penis size with future President of the United States of America Donald J. Trum...
Third in a series . Naiya Speight-Leggett, a representative of Black Youth Project 100, which is closely allied with Black Lives Matter, ga...