|
By PETE KALINER
Special to the Daily Planet
Pete Kaliner is the host of a daily radio talk show on Asheville’s WWNC (570-AM) that airs from 3 to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. This column features posts from his daily blog.
•
The following was posted on July 21:
n important point raised in the wake of the 2015 Confederate Flag Banfest is states’ rights.
Proponents of limited government should welcome the chance to discuss the expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states.
And for years, I have always understood that the Union states (and federal government) were trampling the Confederate states.
But now... I am not so sure — thanks to this piece at The Federalist:
“When it came to slavery, the Union, not the Confederacy, was the true guardian of state autonomy in the antebellum era. After all, how is it that concerns over the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, a federal law enforced by federal agents (or compelled state agents), could possibly be a states’ rights issue? It is long past time to put the contrary myth to rest, especially when the true doctrine of states’ rights is an important, laudable ideal enshrined in the federal Constitution.”
South pushed federal curbs on free states
The South’s real concern in the antebellum period was that states and territories in the North and West were passing state laws aimed at undermining the federal fugitive slave laws, and that new states would choose to join the Union as free states. Those jurisdictions wanted to retain the right to determine whether people could be slaves within their state boundaries—as opposed to the federal government making such determinations.
•
Moreover, when the Southern states actually seceded, they made it clear that they were furious with the northern states for exercising their states’ rights at the expense of the South’s interests in owning people.
According to a recent Washington Post article by University of Vermont professor James W. Loewen:
“[W]hen each state left the Union, its leaders made clear that they were seceding because they were for slavery and against states’ rights. In its ‘Declaration of the Causes Which Impel the State of Texas to Secede From the Federal Union,’ for example, the secession convention of Texas listed the states that had offended the delegates ... Governments there had exercised states’ rights by passing laws that interfered with the federal government’s attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.”
States’ rights are a critical component of the U.S. — not Confederate — system, and as long as the term still holds the false association with the rights of slaveholders, the argument against overreaching federal powers will have difficulty gaining the appreciation it deserves. Regardless of the merits of flying Confederate flags, one feeling people should never have when they see the Stars and Bars is a respect for federalism.
I find it to be a very compelling piece. What do you think?
The following was posted on July 14:
How N.C. media ‘referees’ political fights
Thank goodness WRAL’s Mark Binker has jumped into the political fight between the North Carolina Democratic Party — I mean — the Moral Monday protesters.
Of course, Mr. Binker is merely acting as an umpire here. He’s just calling balls and strikes. He’s a neutral “Fact Checker.”
The North Carolina Republican Party used a news conference in Winston-Salem Monday morning to spotlight what party leaders say is an unseemly connection between labor unions and the “Moral Monday” movement.
“Out-of-state unions are really behind Moral Mondays,” Republican Party Chairman Hasan Harnett told reporters.
•
This is not the first time that Republicans have claimed that “outsiders” were responsible for the protests organized by the Moral Monday movement, a coalition of liberal groups led by the NAACP and its North Carolina president, the Rev. William Barber.
In 2013, when protesters first started getting arrested at the General Assembly building, Gov. Pat McCrory and other GOP leaders claimed that most in the crowds were from outside of North Carolina. Those claims were called into question both by surveys of the crowds as well as reviews of the arrest records for those taken into custody during the summer 2013 protests.
In addition to their news conference Monday, Republican leaders launched a website, immoralmondays.com, that draws connections between Moral Mondays and unions. To back-up the claims on the website, the state GOP offered a white paper that draws on disclosure statements unions file with the U.S. Department of Labor.
You can take a look at the GOP research yourself, and make your own determination whether Action NC is involved with the SEIU as it admittedly provides payroll and human resources contracted work to the tune of $1 million.
But back to the unbiased and neutral “Fact Checker”....
As with any set of political claims, there is a certain amount of hyperbole involved in the GOP’s claims. For example, it was clear that Harnett was using the word “union” as a pejorative adjective, while there are a good number of people who are proud of their connections to organized labor and would not find a connection between candidates they support and union groups at all problematic.
Well! Thank you, Mr. Binker for alerting the ignorant readers that there is a certain amount of hyperbole in political claims. Had you not helpfully pointed this out, people might have thought otherwise.
Like, when the Moral Monday leaders call the GOP legislature “immoral” or “regressive” or “wanting to take us back” ... oh ... wait ... there has never been such a trigger warning attached to these hyperbolic claims.
Indeed, Moral Mondayers have been calling the lawsuit over voting laws “our Selma.” Political hyperbole? It’s hard to say without Fact Checker to let me know.
Strike one.
Also, Mr. Binker offers no explanation of why the GOP would use the term “union” as a pejorative. He helpfully explains why some folks would have no problem with out-of-state unions (specifically, the SEIU) funding political movements in N.C. But there’s no explanation of why conservatives are wary of union influence in state government. (Hint: it’s about the ability of government unions to elect allies into office and then the force of government to extract concessions).
Here’s some more neutral refereeing....
Action NC is a particular bugaboo for Republicans because the group has ties to Blueprint NC, a liberal group that was involved in a dust-up over plans to criticize Republican office-holders and policies.
WRAL could’ve described the Blueprint NC strategy as “eviscerate, mitigate, litigate, cogitate, and agitate” ... which is exactly how Blueprint NC described it’s strategy. But, Mr. Binker opted for the more-innocuous “criticize.”
This framing of the narrative is used often by reporters:Democrats merely “criticize.” Republicans “attack.”
Democrats “take aim” and “respond.” Republicans... well ... they “attack.”
Strike two.
And finally....
But the documents do not show that the money in question was used to pay Moral Monday protestors or organizers. At best, the GOP can argue that some $30,000 might have been used for T-shirts, signs and video services and the like, but that’s a far cry from proving that the Moral Monday groups are “paid by unions to fight voter ID in North Carolina” or hire “paid actors to pretend to protest and to get arrested at the legislature.” We give this GOP claim a red light for overstating their case.
If only there were a fact-checking fact-checker who could ask some of the protesters if they were compensated somehow for their appearances at the protests. Maybe a free ride? Maybe a hotel room?
Strike three.
|
