Lee Stranahan touched on this point, citing Derrick Bell’s book as evidence. But I think it’s worth elaboration, in light of a 2004 article I stumbled across today (and I’m sure I’m not the first). Derrick Bell explicitly believed that Brown v. Board of Education was decided incorrectly — and that the U.S. Supreme Court should have upheld Plessy v. Ferguson‘s “separate but equal” standard . . . and given more teeth to the “equal” part.

“From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners’ arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson,” Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a “separate but equal” standard for blacks and whites. While acknowledging the deep injustices done to black children in segregated schools, Bell argued the court should have determined to enforce the generally ignored “equal” part of the “separate but equal” doctrine.

I went back and forth with Tommy Christopher about this tonight on Twitter. Christopher has not only maintained that Bell was not “radical” — he also maintains that no conservative can honestly believe that, and that anyone who pretends to is engaged in a cynical racist-based “smear” of a dead man who can’t defend himself.

I tried and tried to get Christopher to acknowledge that Bell believed the High Court should have rejected Brown and adopted the Plessy standard, while giving teeth to the “equal” part of “separate but equal.” Time and time again, I closely paraphrased or even quoted Bell’s opinions on the case, and Christopher continually refused to acknowledge that Bell (admittedly in the light of the aftermath of Brown) actually said that the High Court should have upheld Plessy. (He would acknowledge that Bell believed it would have led to better results, but when I would directly put the question to him whether Bell believed the Court should have maintained the separate but equal doctrine, he would refuse to give a straight answer.)

(I am almost certain that Tommy will say I am mischaracterizing the exchange, since he constantly accuses me of mischaracterizing everything he says. My response is: read the tweets for yourself and decide for yourself.)

Granted, I understand why Tommy was seemingly reluctant to admit Bell’s views. Because to do so is to admit that they are radical — and Tommy has very self-righteously mocked the notion that anyone could consider Bell’s views radical. But they are. It is radical to say we should have “separate but equal” in this country. It is radical to say Plessy v. Ferguson should have been upheld.

And when we call it “radical” we are not lying or being cynical or racist. We are speaking the truth.

I call on Tommy Christopher to acknowledge Bell’s views on this issue are radical.

And here is what I’m really getting at: when he doesn’t, I call on you guys to notice . . . and to remember.

UPDATE: Here is one example from my exchange with Tommy:

(more…)

The official announcement was made yesterday.

A real coup for the Breitbartians.

[Posted by Karl]

There’s more voting today, especially on the GOP side.  Here’s your Google Map for tracking results.  Most people will focus on Alabama and Mississippi, which have a quasi-proportional allocation of delegates, based on a 20% and 15% threshold, respectively.  Although the polls have been close in both states, the demographics do not favor front-runner Mitt Romney.  However, Romney wasn’t letting that bother him (publicly):

“You don’t know from polls what will happen but obviously if the polls are anywhere near correct, we’ll end up with, I don’t know, a third of the delegates,” he said, balancing a box of St. Patrick’s Day cookies in his hands.  ”And if that’s the case, why that inches us closer to that magic number.”

Indeed, if Romney gets above 25% in the South, he is likely on track to the nomination.

Plus, Romney is favored to win the Hawaii caucus, which has goofier rules than the typical state.  Mitt will likely sweep in American Samoa, which reportedly has a sizable Mormon poulation, but is decided by about 50 people in a bar.

Update: Santorum wins Alabama, although it looks like Gingrich and Romney will also pick up delegates.  If Gingrich does not win Mississippi, there will be more talk about how he should leave, even though there’s little data suggesting that even a united NotRomney has the critical mass to beat Romney.

Update 2: FNC calls Mississippi for Santorum.  However, Romney may do better in the delegate count here.  IIRC, Santorum never led in a poll there, but the turnout was low and churched.

–Karl

Say it isn’t so.

Andrew Malcolm:

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics.

Impossible. Andrew Malcolm should lose his job and be prosecuted for spewing such nonsense. I am considering a lawsuit and repeatedly defaming him online as well. Perhaps I will accuse him of what I am doing and then frame him for a crime or two. Will you join me?

Also, I plan to call a boycott against Investor’s Business Daily for this line of his:

Bottomline, this study is obviously racist.

You forgot homophobic and misogynistic.

Andrew Malcolm, you are blocked.

But hey, all’s fair in politics. As the Republican front-runner, Sarah Palin must be defeated — even if it takes distortion to do it.

What’s that you say? She’s not even running? What about Rush Limbaugh? He isn’t either?

Attack them anyway. If they’re not running, that should make them easier to beat, shouldn’t it?

Thanks to JD.

Racists

[Posted by Karl]

RCP’s Sean Trende is not a big fan of forecasting, but today he revisits the model I mentioned in wondering whether there might be a “Romney effect” should Mitt Romney be the GOP nominee (the most likely outcome).  Since he originally discussed this model, the campaign (more so the primaries than caucuses) have tended to show a geographic stability.  Mitt has generally won in the Northeast and Mountain West, Santorum in the Great Plains, and Gingrich in the Deep South, with Romney and Santorum splitting the Midwest based on urban vs rural factors.  The results have been fairly predictable, based on county shares of evangelicals, African-Americans, Latinos, college-educated voters, and Mormons. (These results support general findings from Jay Cost as well.)

Most troubling for Romney is that the more recent results show little to no momentum for Romney.  This may or may not matter in a general election, but usually momentum does play a role in primaries.  Trende is careful to note such momentum could develop.  The most recent Rasmussen poll suggests Romney’s support has increased among Republicans, but that is not necessarily predicitive of voting in future primaries.  If Mitt fails to get momentum — and if his rivals remain in the race — he will have a marginally worse slog than I anticipated in the upcoming Southern contests.  Simply eyeballing the balance of evangelicals and Catholics, I thought Romney could have an opportunity in Louisiana, but the results of Trende’s model may suggest otherwise.  Even so, I think the close states will remain close and that Indiana and Pennsylvania may not fall quite the way the model would suggest.

–Karl