Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Congressional Black Caucus
The black caucus in Congress likes to think of itself as the conscience of Capitol Hill. But this year it has been beset by scandal after scandal. Mention Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters and your interlocutor is likely to roll his eyes. It looks as if Eddie Bernice Johnson and Sanford Bishop fall into the same category. Is everyone in the black caucus a crook? It would be very sad, indeed, if this were true.
Published in General
If these were white Republicans, they’d have been hounded out of office by now.
And appealing, deserving scholarship applicants who had missed out would be all over broadcast and cable.
Why shouldn’t the conscience of Capitol Hill be plagued by scandal? It seems rather fitting, in fact.
If you’re ultra-liberal, and believe that all money flows out of the tooth fairy’s endless supply, then you’re going to spread it around with more abandon. It’s only money. They’ll just get more.
Yikes! I’m not sure that conclusion is warranted. I think the issue is more to do with politicians serving from districts that are undisputed — where there is no meaningful competition for the seat and the elected official becomes the choice of party hacks. It just so happens that this often happens in districts that are predominantly black and Democratic. This kind of situation breeds corruption. There are favors to return, influence to peddle, etc. After all, investing in a politician you know cannot be unseated is always going to be the smarter business decision.
Which conclusion?
That everyone in the Congressional black caucus is a crook.
Anyone want to bet on how long it will take for the Left to grab ahold of that quote, and try and smear Prof. Rahe as a racist?
I agree with you, Mr. Urdan, that the safety of seats held by black Democrats in predominantly black districts is the primary cause of such corruption. However, Prof. Rahe didn’t come to any conclusions; he posed a question and we’re here to discuss and try and answer it.
Of course, not all members of the Congressional Black Caucus are corrupt, but given what we agree to be the root cause of such corruption, the potential is there for abuses of power amongst many of its members.
FWIW I was rolling my eyes at those names long before I had any idea they were crooks.
Oh. Well, that wasn’t his conclusion. It was a question.
No, but everyone in the Congressional black caucus is in Congress, and that accounts for much of what is happening. That’s a very privileged little club.
Wouldn’t that be as bad as saying that the United Nations might have some crooks in it ?
After all the CBC exists to represent a large special interest group within the country, almost a country within a country.
While the United Nations exists to represent a very small interest within the world, almost a ______________.
Kleptocracy is most prevalent in _____________________
Postcolonialism followed by post marxism is usually followed by ____________ ?
“Is everyone in the black caucus a crook?”
Ugghh! This is the sort of “statement” that conservatives need to abjure forever, but definitely for the next two years. For all his learning, Prof. Rahe has said a number of things on Ricochet that are poison to conservatives in American realpolitik.
Ugghh! This is the sort of “statement” that conservatives need to abjure forever, but definitely for the next two years. For all his learning, Prof. Rahe has said a number of things on Ricochet that are poison to conservatives in American realpolitik. ·Sep 10 at 11:57am
Since when is a question a statement? ·Sep 10 at 12:39pm
A thought experiment: Imagine that someone showed up at a Tea Party rally with your question on their sign. What would happen? My sense is that they would be politely asked to leave.
Paul A. Rahe, Guest Contributor
Patrick in Albuquerque: “Is everyone in the black caucus a crook?”
Ugghh! This is the sort of “statement” that conservatives need to abjure forever, but definitely for the next two years. For all his learning, Prof. Rahe has said a number of things on Ricochet that are poison to conservatives in American realpolitik. ·Sep 10 at 11:57am
When I asked my question — “Is everyone in the black caucus a crook?” I added the following statement: “It would be very sad, indeed, if this were true.”
Why did you turn the question into a statement and ignore the statement that followed?
Let me suggest a thought experiment. If someone pulled that trick on you, what would you think?
When I asked my question — “Is everyone in the black caucus a crook?” I added the following statement: “It would be very sad, indeed, if this were true.”
Why did you turn the question into a statement and ignore the statement that followed?
Let me suggest a thought experiment. If someone pulled that trick on you, what would you think? ·Sep 10 at 2:40pm
There’s no need for anyone to be offended.
I think it’s fair to say that the question could be misconstrued as rhetorical or simply taken out of context and used to impugn you and/or the forum. At minimum it is highly provocative as the common denominator for membership in the caucus is race.
Tuned to the frequency of San Francisco, I had Patrick’s same reaction, which was to immediately hope that the wrong people don’t see it and take it out of context. And I know that’s not fair, or intellectually honest, but it’s the reality of the political and media landscape. In any case a debate about the optics of the question keeps us from discussing the larger point of your post.
I think it’s fair to say that the question could be misconstrued as rhetorical or simply taken out of context and used to impugn you and/or the forum. At minimum it is highly provocative as the common denominator for membership in the caucus is race.
Tuned to the frequency of San Francisco, I had Patrick’s same reaction, which was to immediately hope that the wrong people don’t see it and take it out of context. And I know that’s not fair, or intellectually honest, but it’s the reality of the political and media landscape. In any case a debate about the optics of the question keeps us from discussing the larger point of your post. ·Sep 10 at 3:08pm
It is one thing to say that “the question could be misconstrued as rhetorical or simply taken out of context and used to impugn you and/or the forum.” It is another to misconstrue it as rhetorical and to take it out of context.
It is one thing to say that “the question could be misconstrued as rhetorical or simply taken out of context and used to impugn you and/or the forum.” It is another to misconstrue it as rhetorical and to take it out of context. ·Sep 10 at 3:29pm
I understood Dr. Rahe’s question as the rhetorical device it is. As in, “Has everyone gone crazy”?
But to help Dr. Rahe understand Trace’s response, Ricochet is a very special space. We’re all quite careful to moderate our tone, because there’s a sense that the whole Web is watching.
If you read a lot of comments here, you can actually feel self-censorship between the lines. And sometimes you’ll see us reminding each other – gently – that a certain statement veered uncomfortably close to the edge.
Now, Brothers, let us put this contretemps behind us and acknowledge that no disrespect was intended.
All is well. All is well.
I’m intrigued Kenneth. I want to see the blog where you are fully unconstrained. I had no idea we were getting only Kenneth-lite!
Ugghh! This is the sort of “statement” that conservatives need to abjure forever, but definitely for the next two years. For all his learning, Prof. Rahe has said a number of things on Ricochet that are poison to conservatives in American realpolitik. ·Sep 10 at 11:57am
Since when is a question a statement? ·Sep 10 at 12:39pm
A thought experiment: Imagine that someone showed up at a Tea Party rally with your question on their sign. What would happen? My sense is that they would be politely asked to leave. ·Sep 10 at 2:07pm
When I asked my question — “Is everyone in the black caucus a crook?” I added the following statement: “It would be very sad, indeed, if this were true.”
Why did you turn the question into a statement and ignore the statement that followed?
Let me suggest a thought experiment. If someone pulled that trick on you, what would you think? ·Sep 10 at 2:40pm
Perhaps that the person was a butthead.
The Black Caucus, like so many minority rights organizations, has not had legitimacy during my lifetime. I grew up during the height of affirmative action. My generation did not live through segregation or the race riots. All we know first-hand is the public assumption that racial minorities are always right and whites (especially white males) are reprehensible and should remain silent.
I understand why the Black Caucus and similar groups continue to exist. Segregation is still within living memory. But their general memberships strike me as opportunistic at best and racist at worst.
Ugghh! This is the sort of “statement” that conservatives need to abjure forever, but definitely for the next two years. For all his learning, Prof. Rahe has said a number of things on Ricochet that are poison to conservatives in American realpolitik. ·Sep 10 at 11:57am
Since when is a question a statement?