Shelby Steele: The Smartest Man In America? (NRR)

Rockadelic

Mr. Steele is on the board of Stanford University and has authored many books and papers on racism in America. His latest book "White Guilt: How Blacks And Whites Together Destroyed The Promise Of The Civil Rights Era" is in a book store near you. His views seem to be on point and make good sense to me. In 2006, Steele received the Bradley Prize for his contributions to the study of race in America. In 2004, he was awarded the National Humanities Medal. Here is a excerpt from a recent article he wrote for the Hoover Institute.Wake Up America, Mr. Steele hits this nail on the head.Read and learn._________________________________________________________________________________White guilt makes our Third World enemies into colored victims, people whose problems--even the tyrannies they live under--were created by the historical disruptions and injustices of the white West. We must "understand" and pity our enemy even as we fight him. And, though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war--and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past.Anti-Americanism, whether in Europe or on the American left, works by the mechanism of white guilt. It stigmatizes America with all the imperialistic and racist ugliness of the white Western past so that America becomes a kind of straw man, a construct of Western sin. (The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons were the focus of such stigmatization campaigns.) Once the stigma is in place, one need only be anti-American in order to be "good," in order to have an automatic moral legitimacy and power in relation to America. (People as seemingly disparate as President Jacques Chirac and the Rev. Al Sharpton are devoted pursuers of the moral high ground to be had in anti-Americanism.) This formula is the most dependable source of power for today's international left. Virtue and power by mere anti-Americanism. And it is all the more appealing since, unlike real virtues, it requires no sacrifice or effort--only outrage at every slight echo of the imperialist past.Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so.

motown67

Shelby Steele is the black man conservatives love. He came out with a book about race, hmm, maybe 10 plus years ago that made a lot of noise, Content Of Our Character. Basically he said that racism had ended and that it only exists in people's minds. Blacks for example, always look at themselves as victims of racism and this has trapped them from achieving in America. Of course racial profiling, red lining and de facto segregation must be in our little private mind gardens as well.

And I like how he threw in that victory in Iraq would be a defeat for Islamism. Hmm, what Islamists were really there before we invaded? Iraq is falling into a civil war and the U.S. looks like it's going to be trapped in the middle, how exactly is that going to be about fighting Islamism? Of course, the speech was given at the conservative Hoover Institute, so you could expect something like that.

soulmarcosa

Shelby Steele is the black man conservatives love. He came out with a book about race, hmm, maybe 10 plus years ago that made a lot of noise, Content Of Our Character. Basically he said that racism had ended and that it only exists in people's minds. Blacks for example, always look at themselves as victims of racism and this has trapped them from achieving in America. Of course racial profiling, red lining and de facto segregation must be in our little private mind gardens as well.

I remember reading that book around 1990 and coming to the same conclusion.

DJ_Enki

From Steele's piece (emphases mine):

After World War II, revolutions across the globe, from India to Algeria and from Indonesia to the American civil rights revolution, defeated the authority inherent in white supremacy[/b], if not the idea itself. And this defeat exacted a price: the West was left stigmatized by its sins. Today, the white West--like Germany after the Nazi defeat--lives in a kind of secular penitence in which the slightest echo of past sins brings down withering condemnation. There is now a cloud over white skin where there once was unquestioned authority.[/b]

Bemoaning that the "unquestioned authority" of white skin doesn't exist anymore?

Wow. Just wow.

Basically, it's pretty freaking stupid.

Rockadelic

Shelby Steele is the black man conservatives love. He came out with a book about race, hmm, maybe 10 plus years ago that made a lot of noise, Content Of Our Character. Basically he said that racism had ended and that it only exists in people's minds. Blacks for example, always look at themselves as victims of racism and this has trapped them from achieving in America. Of course racial profiling, red lining and de facto segregation must be in our little private mind gardens as well.

And I like how he threw in that victory in Iraq would be a defeat for Islamism. Hmm, what Islamists were really there before we invaded? Iraq is falling into a civil war and the U.S. looks like it's going to be trapped in the middle, how exactly is that going to be about fighting Islamism? Of course, the speech was given at the conservative Hoover Institute, so you could expect something like that.

I heard him on a talk show about a month ago and have been reading his stuff since.

Regardless of who likes or dislikes him, most of his stuff just makes sense to me.

motown67

From Steele's piece (emphases mine):

After World War II, revolutions across the globe, from India to Algeria and from Indonesia to the American civil rights revolution, defeated the authority inherent in white supremacy[/b], if not the idea itself. And this defeat exacted a price: the West was left stigmatized by its sins. Today, the white West--like Germany after the Nazi defeat--lives in a kind of secular penitence in which the slightest echo of past sins brings down withering condemnation. There is now a cloud over white skin where there once was unquestioned authority.[/b]

Bemoaning that the "unquestioned authority" of white skin doesn't exist anymore?

Wow. Just wow.

Basically, it's pretty freaking stupid.

HE believes that most whites feel white guilt and this contrains them from treating blacks equally. Basically they're scared of the race card. Hmm, please to introduce me to all of these scared, guilty, liberal white people.

motown67

Shelby Steele is the black man conservatives love. He came out with a book about race, hmm, maybe 10 plus years ago that made a lot of noise, Content Of Our Character. Basically he said that racism had ended and that it only exists in people's minds. Blacks for example, always look at themselves as victims of racism and this has trapped them from achieving in America. Of course racial profiling, red lining and de facto segregation must be in our little private mind gardens as well.

And I like how he threw in that victory in Iraq would be a defeat for Islamism. Hmm, what Islamists were really there before we invaded? Iraq is falling into a civil war and the U.S. looks like it's going to be trapped in the middle, how exactly is that going to be about fighting Islamism? Of course, the speech was given at the conservative Hoover Institute, so you could expect something like that.

I heard him on a talk show about a month ago and have been reading his stuff since.

Regardless of who likes or dislikes him, most of his stuff just makes sense to me.

Have you read his writings on race, which is what got him famous? Do you agree with him that racism does not exist anymore?

Rockadelic

Shelby Steele is the black man conservatives love. He came out with a book about race, hmm, maybe 10 plus years ago that made a lot of noise, Content Of Our Character. Basically he said that racism had ended and that it only exists in people's minds. Blacks for example, always look at themselves as victims of racism and this has trapped them from achieving in America. Of course racial profiling, red lining and de facto segregation must be in our little private mind gardens as well.

And I like how he threw in that victory in Iraq would be a defeat for Islamism. Hmm, what Islamists were really there before we invaded? Iraq is falling into a civil war and the U.S. looks like it's going to be trapped in the middle, how exactly is that going to be about fighting Islamism? Of course, the speech was given at the conservative Hoover Institute, so you could expect something like that.

I heard him on a talk show about a month ago and have been reading his stuff since.

Regardless of who likes or dislikes him, most of his stuff just makes sense to me.

Have you read his writings on race, which is what got him famous? Do you agree with him that racism does not exist anymore?

I have not read anything where Steele suggests racism does not exist. His father was employed by CORE so he certainly should have a good understanding of racism and race relations.

What I have read can be summed up by this quote from Mr. Steele....

I had written a book that said, among many other things, that black American leaders were practicing politics that drew the group into a victim-focused racial identity that, in turn, stifled black advancement more than racism itself did.[/b]

This is by no means a crackpot or stupid man, he has even been mentioned as a future head man at Harvard.

twoply

Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them.

So... can you explain which quarters these might be, where it is considered politically incorrect to say "power" or "victory" in any context?

This guy may be smart, but that doesn't make him right.

funky16corners

FACTS[/b] make our Third World enemies into colored victims, people whose problems--even the tyrannies they live under--were created by the historical disruptions and injustices of the white West.

Rockadelic

Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them.

So... can you explain which quarters these might be, where it is considered politically incorrect to say "power" or "victory" in any context?

This guy may be smart, but that doesn't make him right.

I can't be expected to explain what a man, much smarter than I, meant in his writings.....but.....I can only assume he means that in certain "Liberal" quarters the words "Power" and "Victory", especially if spoken about together in respect to Wars, is politically incorrect. That force/violence, which is needed to win a War, is a shameful act in some "quarters".

What do you think he means??

Rockadelic

I see you "pass" on all my Political postings.....

funky16corners

Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them.

So... can you explain which quarters these might be, where it is considered politically incorrect to say "power" or "victory" in any context?

This guy may be smart, but that doesn't make him right.

I can't be expected to explain what a man, much smarter than I, meant in his writings.....but.....I can only assume he means that in certain "Liberal" quarters the words "Power" and "Victory", especially if spoken about together in respect to Wars, is politically incorrect. That force/violence, which is needed to win a War, is a shameful act in some "quarters".

What do you think he means??

I think you're giving him too much credit. It he were that much smarter than you he wouldn't be wasting his time writing crap like that. "Certain people" dislike the use of terms like "power and victory" in this context because it is redolent of a simplistic, warlike mindset that boils hugely complicated conflicts with a lengthy backstory into simple analogs of strong vs weak, good vs evil, which they are most certainly not.

motown67

I have not read anything where Steele suggests racism does not exist. His father was employed by CORE so he certainly should have a good understanding of racism and race relations.

What I have read can be summed up by this quote from Mr. Steele....

I had written a book that said, among many other things, that black American leaders were practicing politics that drew the group into a victim-focused racial identity that, in turn, stifled black advancement more than racism itself did.[/b]

This is by no means a crackpot or stupid man, he has even been mentioned as a future head man at Harvard.

That's part of his argument, but at the core of it, he claims that racism doesn't really exist anymore.

He claims that blacks are caught up in victimhood and constrain themselves because of it. Ex: "I can't get a job because I'm black." Black leaders also use this victimization to get consessions from the white power structure.

The other part of his thesis is that whites are afraid of the race card and feel white guilt over past wrongs and thus will never treat blacks as equals.

If whites just looked as blacks as equals and blacks quit looking at themselves as victims, everything would work out in America and there would be no more racism.

I do not deny that black and white leaders use the race card. I will not deny that there are some bleeding heart liberals, however, to say that racism doesn't exist except as a power/guilt game is a bunch of crap.

One need only look at racial profiling, red lining, sentencing in criminals courts, and the prison population to see institutional racism still at work in America.

During the 1990s the FBI gave seminars around the country to police departments telling them to pull over black and Latino drivers because they could be involved in the drug trade. 70% of drug users in America happen to be white.

Several large America banks such as Bank America have been successful sued for red lining. That's the practice of denying people of color loans. This usually comes with home loans where banks will not give a loan to a black or other colored family if they were trying to move to a predominantly white neighborhood.

There have been several studies that found that blacks get longer prison terms for the same crimes compared to whites.

In 1999 69% of all arrests in the U.S. were white, 28.6% were black. If you looked at the prison population however 44.1% of prison inmates were black and only 34% white. If you broke down arrests by types of crimes committed whites committed more serious crimes than blacks. 63.9% of all serious crimes in 1999 were committed by whites, compared to only 33.4% of whites. Murder was 45.9% by white, 51.8% by blacks, Rape was 61.5% by whites, 36.2% by blacks, Robbery was 43.9% by whites, 54.4% by blacks. Assault was 63% by whites, 34.8% by whites. Not only that but whites are 70% of the population compared to only 13% for blacks so why are more whites arrested and more whites doing serious crimes in America, yet there are more blacks in prison? From 1990 to 2000 the number of blacks in prison increased 69% from 360,000 to 613,000. The number of white inmates only increased 27% at the same time. Two reasons might be behind the general increase in incarceration, one the drug war, and longer prison terms metted out to people. That still doesn't explain the discrepencies between the number of whites and blacks in prison.

Shelby Steele basically ignores this type of racism and focuses on personal black-white relations and political leaders.

soulmarcosa

I can only assume he means that in certain "Liberal" quarters the words "Power" and "Victory", especially if spoken about together in respect to Wars, is politically incorrect. That force/violence, which is needed to win a War, is a shameful act in some "quarters".

I don't think anyone would argue the LETTER of what he's saying, but the SPIRIT of what he's saying is to imply that "white guilt" is somehow perpetuating Islamic extremism, while I'd argue that "white arrogance" is a far more appropriate culprit.

And I think anyone with half a brain should take issue with this statement:

Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism.

That's a shortsighted opinion to say the least. Again, IMO "American victory in Iraq" would far more likely FAN the flames of Islamic extremism rather than extinguish them.

Smartest Man in America? I have to disagree.

twoply

What do you think he means??

I understand what he's trying to say, I just think he's making things up. I'm sure the liberals who consider even uttering those words to be taboo are marginal, if they exist at all. So why even bother mentioning those people? It looks to me like he's tying to stir up conflict where it doesn't exist.

motown67

Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them.

So... can you explain which quarters these might be, where it is considered politically incorrect to say "power" or "victory" in any context?

This guy may be smart, but that doesn't make him right.

I can't be expected to explain what a man, much smarter than I, meant in his writings.....but.....I can only assume he means that in certain "Liberal" quarters the words "Power" and "Victory", especially if spoken about together in respect to Wars, is politically incorrect. That force/violence, which is needed to win a War, is a shameful act in some "quarters".

What do you think he means??

Well most of the country is pretty conservative right now. We have a conservative president, a conservative Congress, and Fox News last time I checked was the #1 cable news channel.

motown67

I can only assume he means that in certain "Liberal" quarters the words "Power" and "Victory", especially if spoken about together in respect to Wars, is politically incorrect. That force/violence, which is needed to win a War, is a shameful act in some "quarters".

I don't think anyone would argue the LETTER of what he's saying, but the SPIRIT of what he's saying is to imply that "white guilt" is somehow perpetuating Islamic extremism, while I'd argue that "white arrogance" is a far more appropriate culprit.

And I think anyone with half a brain should take issue with this statement:

Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism.

That's a shortsighted opinion to say the least. Again, IMO "American victory in Iraq" would far more likely FAN the flames of Islamic extremism rather than extinguish them.

Smartest Man in America? I have to disagree.

In all honesty I do not think we can "win" in Iraq. There were not Islamists there before except Ansar Al-Islam and they were just fighting the Kurds. Now there are hundreds of them there looking to kill Americans. If we lose, and this we definitely can, that WILL be a victory for Islamists because they can claim responsibility whether real or imagined. Iraq is this close to entering into a very bloody civil war that has absolutely nothing to do with fighting Islamists. The U.S. will be directly blamed, and for good reason, if this war really breaks out. It's a no-win situation in my book.

Rockadelic

What do you think he means??

I understand what he's trying to say, I just think he's making things up. I'm sure the liberals who consider even uttering those words to be taboo are marginal, if they exist at all. So why even bother mentioning those people? It looks to me like he's tying to stir up conflict where it doesn't exist.

Certainly one way to rationalize something you don't agree with, without having to give it any creedence, is to say you "Think he's making things up".

I'm not sure if all the awards and accolades this man has earned are all from "Conservative quarters" or not, but obviously someone thinks he's on point.

twoply

What do you think he means??

I understand what he's trying to say, I just think he's making things up. I'm sure the liberals who consider even uttering those words to be taboo are marginal, if they exist at all. So why even bother mentioning those people? It looks to me like he's tying to stir up conflict where it doesn't exist.

Certainly one way to rationalize something you don't agree with, without having to give it any creedence, is to say you "Think he's making things up".

How am I rationalizing something I don't agree with? I'm saying his statement sounds extremely unlikely and I need proof before I believe it. Or is questioning Shelby Steele considered politically incorrect in many quarters?

CaMKIIa

eh, just like all intellectuals who seek media attention, steele raises some good points and also says a lot of open ended stuff that gives conservatives a raging hard on because they can back up their thinly-veiled racism with "my black friend thinks so too!"...when in fact it's really not what steele was saying in the first place. the same thing goes for john mcwhorter. both raise decent arguments that can be easily manipulated to fit a conservative agenda (when they are not inherently conservative).

and just because stanford and harvard think he's hot shit, doesn't mean he's automatically smart. a good 75% of work done in academia is complete bullshit (regardless of discipline) and only meant to perpetuate meaningless careers.

Rockadelic

What do you think he means??

I understand what he's trying to say, I just think he's making things up. I'm sure the liberals who consider even uttering those words to be taboo are marginal, if they exist at all. So why even bother mentioning those people? It looks to me like he's tying to stir up conflict where it doesn't exist.

Certainly one way to rationalize something you don't agree with, without having to give it any creedence, is to say you "Think he's making things up".

How am I rationalizing something I don't agree with? I'm saying his statement sounds extremely unlikely and I need proof before I believe it. Or is questioning Shelby Steele considered politically incorrect in many quarters?

You're rationalizing that it must not be true, because you think he's making things up.....I on the other hand would like to think someone who is not in politics, but is a scholar who represents Stanford University would not just "make things up".

I'm not saying it's impossible, but just following your intuition, that he's making things up, without any sort of explanation or evidence as to why, makes it pretty

And I'm sure he's been scrutinized by folks smarter than you and me.

motown67

What do you think he means??

I understand what he's trying to say, I just think he's making things up. I'm sure the liberals who consider even uttering those words to be taboo are marginal, if they exist at all. So why even bother mentioning those people? It looks to me like he's tying to stir up conflict where it doesn't exist.

Certainly one way to rationalize something you don't agree with, without having to give it any creedence, is to say you "Think he's making things up".

I'm not sure if all the awards and accolades this man has earned are all from "Conservative quarters" or not, but obviously someone thinks he's on point.

When it comes to Iraq, this seems to be his point.

These people:





are constraining us from "victory" because they don't want to oppress people in the Third World.

These guys however aren't afraid of victory:





But they are just so constrained by those "other" people. It's such a shame.

Rockadelic

eh, just like all intellectuals who seek media attention, steele raises some good points and also says a lot of open ended stuff that gives conservatives a raging hard on because they can back up their thinly-veiled racism with "my black friend thinks so too!"...when in fact it's really not what steele was saying in the first place. the same thing goes for john mcwhorter. both raise decent arguments that can be easily manipulated to fit a conservative agenda (when they are not inherently conservative).

and just because stanford and harvard think he's hot shit, doesn't mean he's automatically smart. a good 75% of work done in academia is complete bullshit (regardless of discipline) and only meant to perpetuate meaningless careers.

I try to let his work stand on it's own without having an agenda on either end of the spectrum.

The fact that Conservatives agree with his "good points" should not discredit him or his work.

I believe the "good points" Mr. Steele makes should be heard and understood by Liberals and Conservatives without a bi-partisan pointing match.

motown67

What do you think he means??

I understand what he's trying to say, I just think he's making things up. I'm sure the liberals who consider even uttering those words to be taboo are marginal, if they exist at all. So why even bother mentioning those people? It looks to me like he's tying to stir up conflict where it doesn't exist.

Certainly one way to rationalize something you don't agree with, without having to give it any creedence, is to say you "Think he's making things up".

How am I rationalizing something I don't agree with? I'm saying his statement sounds extremely unlikely and I need proof before I believe it. Or is questioning Shelby Steele considered politically incorrect in many quarters?

You're rationalizing that it must not be true, because you think he's making things up.....I on the other hand would like to think someone who is not in politics, but is a scholar who represents Stanford University would not just "make things up".

I'm not saying it's impossible, but just following your intuition, that he's making things up, without any sort of explanation or evidence as to why, makes it pretty

And I'm sure he's been scrutinized by folks smarter than you and me.

I don't think Steele is making things up. He's stating his opinion. I just think he's full of shit.

Please explain to me how liberals are stopping us from victory in Iraq?

Please explain to me how racism doesn't really exist anymore?

Rockadelic

What do you think he means??

I understand what he's trying to say, I just think he's making things up. I'm sure the liberals who consider even uttering those words to be taboo are marginal, if they exist at all. So why even bother mentioning those people? It looks to me like he's tying to stir up conflict where it doesn't exist.

Certainly one way to rationalize something you don't agree with, without having to give it any creedence, is to say you "Think he's making things up".

I'm not sure if all the awards and accolades this man has earned are all from "Conservative quarters" or not, but obviously someone thinks he's on point.

When it comes to Iraq, this seems to be his point.

These people:





are constraining us from "victory" because they don't want to oppress people in the Third World.

These guys however aren't afraid of victory:





But they are just so constrained by those "other" people. It's such a shame.

Wow....I know you wouldn't want folks to assumptively attribute words or thoughts to your research that way.

twoply

You're rationalizing that it must not be true, because you think he's making things up.....I on the other hand would like to think someone who is not in politics, but is a scholar who represents Stanford University would not just "make things up".

I'm not saying it's impossible, but just following your intuition, that he's making things up, without any sort of explanation or evidence as to why, makes it pretty

And I'm sure he's been scrutinized by folks smarter than you and me.

I've never subscribed to the "If they have an edcation, they shouldn't be questioned" line of thinking. Not to say that an education is meaningless (I'm not George F. Will), but it won't render anyone incapable of exaggerating, bending the truth or straight out lying.

At any rate, Motown67 is a very smart man and he's scrutinizing Mr. Steele right here in this thread.


*edited to add above quote for context

Rockadelic

You're rationalizing that it must not be true, because you think he's making things up.....I on the other hand would like to think someone who is not in politics, but is a scholar who represents Stanford University would not just "make things up".

I'm not saying it's impossible, but just following your intuition, that he's making things up, without any sort of explanation or evidence as to why, makes it pretty

And I'm sure he's been scrutinized by folks smarter than you and me.

I've never subscribed to the "If they have an edcation, they shouldn't be questioned" line of thinking. Not to say that an education is meaningless (I'm not George F. Will), but it won't render anyone incapable of exaggerating, bending the truth or straight out lying.

At any rate, Motown67 is a very smart man and he's scrutinizing Mr. Steele right here in this thread.


*edited to add above quote for context

It doesn't matter if it's a friggin record collecting idiot like me, or the future Prez of Harvard, if they have an opinion that even leans towards being Conservative, they are full of shit.

I understand.

motown67

White guilt makes our Third World enemies into colored victims, people whose problems--even the tyrannies they live under--were created by the historical disruptions and injustices of the white West. We must "understand" and pity our enemy even as we fight him. And, though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war--and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past.

Tell me who in the Bush administration feels "white guilt" about the Third World? Who in the Bush administration pities our enemies? "Managerial minimalism" is a great term, except it was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who advocated sending in a light force of troops into both Afghanistan and Iraq, not because he felt some kind of guilt or fear that we might harm people, but because he wants to transform the U.S. miltary into a light and agile force that no longer relies on 100s of 1000s of troops, tanks, etc. Under the original invasion plan for Iraq, the U.S. was to send in around 400,000 soldiers. Rumsfeld only wanted to send in 70,000. After arguing with his generals he agreed upon roughly 175-150,000 troops to go into Iraq. Rumsfeld made no plans for after the invasion and wanted almost all U.S. troops out within 3-4 months. Last time I checked Rumsfeld was no guilty white liberal.

Rockadelic

White guilt makes our Third World enemies into colored victims, people whose problems--even the tyrannies they live under--were created by the historical disruptions and injustices of the white West. We must "understand" and pity our enemy even as we fight him. And, though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war--and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past.

Tell me who in the Bush administration feels "white guilt" about the Third World? Who in the Bush administration pities our enemies? "Managerial minimalism" is a great term, except it was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who advocated sending in a light force of troops into both Afghanistan and Iraq, not because he felt some kind of guilt or fear that we might harm people, but because he wants to transform the U.S. miltary into a light and agile force that no longer relies on 100s of 1000s of troops, tanks, etc. Under the original invasion plan for Iraq, the U.S. was to send in around 400,000 soldiers. Rumsfeld only wanted to send in 70,000. After arguing with his generals he agreed upon roughly 175-150,000 troops to go into Iraq. Rumsfeld made no plans for after the invasion and wanted almost all U.S. troops out within 3-4 months. Last time I checked Rumsfeld was no guilty white liberal.

Why all the blah blah.....where on EARTH did you come up with Steele saying the current administration has any kind of "white guilt". He obviously attributes this phenomenom to the Left......jeeez.....every argument here about politics comes down to the same thing.......

But...but...but...Bush and Cheney suck!!

motown67

You're rationalizing that it must not be true, because you think he's making things up.....I on the other hand would like to think someone who is not in politics, but is a scholar who represents Stanford University would not just "make things up".

I'm not saying it's impossible, but just following your intuition, that he's making things up, without any sort of explanation or evidence as to why, makes it pretty

And I'm sure he's been scrutinized by folks smarter than you and me.

I've never subscribed to the "If they have an edcation, they shouldn't be questioned" line of thinking. Not to say that an education is meaningless (I'm not George F. Will), but it won't render anyone incapable of exaggerating, bending the truth or straight out lying.

At any rate, Motown67 is a very smart man and he's scrutinizing Mr. Steele right here in this thread.


*edited to add above quote for context

It doesn't matter if it's a friggin record collecting idiot like me, or the future Prez of Harvard, if they have an opinion that even leans towards being Conservative, they are full of shit.

I understand.

It's not becuase he's a conservative that I think he's full of shit. It's because he has a weak and ridiculous argument.

Do you deny that we have a conservative president? Do you deny that we have a conservative Congress? Do you deny that implies that most of America right now is conservative? How are liberals therefore constraining our war against terror and winning victory in Iraq?

Who in the Bush administration feels white guilt?

I am directly responding to various points in Steele's argument. You're response is that he's very smart and his opinion therefore should be respected.