A.C. Kleinheider, producer of Post Politics and The City Paper’s Op-Ed writer, gives us a rare but welcome glimpse into his own political history with One Shot: Remembering Jack Kemp, his post about the 1992 presidential campaign and the glaringly absent candidate Jack Kemp:

I admired Jack Kemp back then. He seemed like a different kind of Republican and I knew that I was looking for something different. And on that day in the fall of 1992, he and the President gave reasonably good speeches (at least they seemed so at the time) but I couldn’t shake the fact that no matter how good, decent or inspiring the politician the process was somehow rotten to the core. Turned out I knew far less than the half of it.

Another thing about 1992 and Jack Kemp that has gotten lost in many of the remembrances of him was that it was strongly rumored that Kemp had given seriously consideration to challenging President Bush in the primaries that year.

Kemp, of course, was driving force behind much of the Reagan economic program but his campaign for President had failed to catch fire in 1988 and thus Bush, not he, claimed the mantle of Reagan and the Presidency.

But Jack Kemp, writes Bob Herbert in today’s New York Times, was also the driving force behind another idea – one that wasn’t embraced forcefully by the GOP and is the reason why, decades later, they’re a sinking ship:

Kemp, who died on Saturday from cancer, would later be much better known for his long career as a conservative Republican politician. He had two very big ideas for his party. One was terrific, spot on. The other couldn’t have been more boneheaded. The G.O.P. being the G.O.P. rejected the good idea and went hog wild for the boneheaded one.

Kemp’s good idea was that the Republicans should vastly expand their tent, get past their narrow-mindedness and begin actively seeking the support of blacks and other ethnic minorities.

The G.O.P. would have none of it. It was, after all, the party of the southern strategy, and there was precious little that was racially enlightened about its conservative wing. One of the writers who influenced Kemp’s thinking about politics, William F. Buckley, was at the opposite pole of Kemp’s progressive thinking about race. Buckley took a scurrilous stand in the aftermath of the Brown v. Board of Education decision that desegregated the nation’s public schools.

Whites, being superior, were well within their rights to discriminate against blacks, according to Buckley. “The White community is so entitled,” he wrote, “because, for the time being, it is the advanced race …”

Kemp was whistling in a hurricane.

Kudos, A.C., for recognizing that Kemp was a “different kind of Republican.” We can only imagine how different things might have been had he fulfilled his promise.

  • Share/Bookmark
A Kleinheider Joint

A Kleinheider Joint

An editorial in the City Paper by that smarty-boots A.C. Kleinheider says that Godwin’s Law, and not Senator Andy Berke’s religion, was what made Senator Dewayne Bunch’s “nutritional Nazi police” comment on the floor of the Senate so insulting.

His point is well taken, but Godwin’s Law – which states that “the person who first makes an unwarranted reference to Nazi Germany or Hitler in an argument loses that argument automatically” – and sensitivity to someone’s feelings are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And there are exceptions.

Case in point, Senator Bunch’s bill passed AND he immediately – before any of us “progressive activists” called him out – felt the need to apologize to Senator Berke.

In other words, Senator Bunch hyperbolic comment created discomfort for many reasons.

Here’s the video again. Why? Just because Senator Burchett’s reaction (top left) is fun to watch.

  • Share/Bookmark

No, the response to it isn’t an overreaction – bonus! there’s something in Mr. Delonas’ work to offend almost everyone! – it’s the action of the police in the cartoon itself that is excessive.

"What's the virtue of the Proportional Response?"

What's the virtue of the Proportional Response?

There’s a West Wing episode (Season 1, Episode 3), in which my one-time happy place president (he’s been recently replaced), Jed Bartlett, must respond to an attack on an American plane. He’s pissed and wants to respond with the full might of our military strength but is urged towards a more “proportional response” by Leo as well as his Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So in the context of this cartoon, is shooting the person who wrote the economic stimulus package a “proportional response” to disagreeing with it? No, it’s not – or at least it shouldn’t be. Which makes the violence of the thing more frightening than funny (and no, there’s not a hint of satire anywhere to be found). But in light of recent events as well as what our new president represents, the horror of the smoking gun and the bullet-ridden body is much more troublesome than the monkey imagery (which is clearly a riff on the recent rampaging chimp shot by police news story).

Besides, it’s not the first time a president has been compared to a chimp. Just run “chimp” and “George Bush” through an ol’ Google image search.

And to answer Kleinheider’s question, “Is it racist to use the expected knee-jerk reactions of some in order to stoke controversy or just bad taste?,” it’s both. And if you re-write the question this way, “Is it racist to use the empathetic reactions of some in order to stoke controversy,” then it’s evil too. We have to start having serious conversations about race in this country, as U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently pointed out, and we must move beyond having them only when an Imus-like controversy pops up.

  • Share/Bookmark

Kleinheider ‘08

Prosody + Flow + Speed + Cadence + Public Financing = Kleinheider

  • Share/Bookmark
Tagged with: