McConnell's "Freudian" Slips Out

[thebeave]

How does Mitch feel about Asian Americans voting? His wife (Elaine Chao) is Asian. I wonder if he thinks Asians count as "white Americans" or if he wants to suppress their vote like with other PoC?

Have you never met a racist somehow? They often brag about their amicable relationships with individual people of minority race, as proof of their supposed tolerance. If they are a sitting legislator, though, let alone a former Senate Majority Leader, I care a lot more about their actual record than who they are friends with. I don't give a shit whether Mitch McConnell is a racist in his home, it's out on the streets of America that he poses a danger to our collective wellbeing.

You mean a record like this?:

How Mitch McConnell Enabled Barack Obama

In 1964, an ambitious young student at the University of Louisville made an impassioned plea to his classmates, urging them to march in solidarity with Martin Luther King Jr. At the time, Kentucky was no haven for race reformers—it was dominated by some of the same elements of the Democratic Party that vehemently rejected the very notion of civil rights. Nevertheless, this 20-year-old activist called for strong statutes, state and federal, to protect the dignity of minorities. “Property rights have always been, and will continue to be, an integral part of our heritage,” he wrote in the campus newspaper, “but this does not absolve the property holder of his obligation to help ensure the basic rights of all citizens.” The student’s name was Mitch McConnell.

Then, as now, McConnell was a dedicated Republican, but in his younger days, he was also a very high-minded one. As an up-and-coming activist, he declined to work on Barry Goldwater’s reactionary presidential campaign. Instead, his biographer, John David Dyche, told me, he advocated for the civil rights supporter Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. His role model was Kentucky Republican Senator John Sherman Cooper, an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam war who helped defeat a filibuster of the Civil Rights Act. He admired Lyndon Johnson’s legislative mastery, Dyche said, and believed politics could serve a larger purpose.

 

[Politesse]

Bold of you to try and start a conversation on McConnell and the Voting Rights Act! I do read the news, you know.

 

[Toni]

How does Mitch feel about Asian Americans voting? His wife (Elaine Chao) is Asian. I wonder if he thinks Asians count as "white Americans" or if he wants to suppress their vote like with other PoC?

Among my personal acquaintances, it’s not at all unusual for conservative white men to have eastern Asian wives or girlfriends.

 

[Politesse]

How does Mitch feel about Asian Americans voting? His wife (Elaine Chao) is Asian. I wonder if he thinks Asians count as "white Americans" or if he wants to suppress their vote like with other PoC?

Among my personal acquaintances, it’s not at all unusual for conservative white men to have eastern Asian wives or girlfriends.

There does tend to be some sort of power imbalance involved. In socially conservative circles, at least since the late 70s or so, it's okay for a man to have an Asian wife, a Cuban houseservant, an adopted child from the Bronx, etc. They can even wax rhapsodic about how much they love them. But a woman who wants to get ahead in Conservative circles is not going to brag about her Black husband, nor a white man about his abiding friendship with his Indian boss and mentor.

Not that I think Mitch McConnell gets to boss Elaine Chao around much! She's a true powerhouse, and he's in debt to her similarly impressive father. But there still has to be at least the appearance of "proper social relationships" in order for right wing social discourse to comfortably tolerate inclusion.

 

[Toni]

How does Mitch feel about Asian Americans voting? His wife (Elaine Chao) is Asian. I wonder if he thinks Asians count as "white Americans" or if he wants to suppress their vote like with other PoC?

Among my personal acquaintances, it’s not at all unusual for conservative white men to have eastern Asian wives or girlfriends.

There does tend to be some sort of power imbalance involved. In socially conservative circles, at least since the late 70s or so, it's okay for a man to have an Asian wife, a Cuban houseservant, an adopted child from the Bronx, etc. They can even wax rhapsodic about how much they love them. But a woman who wants to get ahead in Conservative circles is not going to brag about her Black husband, nor a white man about his abiding friendship with his Indian boss and mentor.

Not that I think Mitch McConnell gets to boss Elaine Chao around much! She's a powerhouse. But there still has to be at least the appearance of "proper social relationships" in order for right wing social discourse to comfortably tolerate inclusion.

Oh, for certain there is or was a stereotype that eastern Asian women are very subservient but that is also not my observation.

I think that the Clarence/Ginny Thomas marriage is another marriage that runs counter to stereotypes of conservatives.

 

[laughing dog]

There is abundant evidence that the GOP would attempt to suppress any group's vote if they thought that group was going to vote against them.

It is beyond naivete to think Mr. McConnell's characterization of voting turnout by African Americans is accurate.

I don't care if that old man's utterance is the result of a brain fart or if it intentional because it is a falsehood.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well I'm glad the title managed to generate such a vigorous discussion of McConnell's fucked up and evil behavior insofar as that he uttered a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement.

Huzzah

 

[ZiprHead]

How does Mitch feel about Asian Americans voting? His wife (Elaine Chao) is Asian. I wonder if he thinks Asians count as "white Americans" or if he wants to suppress their vote like with other PoC?

Have you never met a racist somehow? They often brag about their amicable relationships with individual people of minority race, as proof of their supposed tolerance. If they are a sitting legislator, though, let alone a former Senate Majority Leader, I care a lot more about their actual record than who they are friends with. I don't give a shit whether Mitch McConnell is a racist in his home, it's out on the streets of America that he poses a danger to our collective wellbeing.

You mean a record like this?:

How Mitch McConnell Enabled Barack Obama

In 1964, an ambitious young student at the University of Louisville made an impassioned plea to his classmates, urging them to march in solidarity with Martin Luther King Jr. At the time, Kentucky was no haven for race reformers—it was dominated by some of the same elements of the Democratic Party that vehemently rejected the very notion of civil rights. Nevertheless, this 20-year-old activist called for strong statutes, state and federal, to protect the dignity of minorities. “Property rights have always been, and will continue to be, an integral part of our heritage,” he wrote in the campus newspaper, “but this does not absolve the property holder of his obligation to help ensure the basic rights of all citizens.” The student’s name was Mitch McConnell.

Then, as now, McConnell was a dedicated Republican, but in his younger days, he was also a very high-minded one. As an up-and-coming activist, he declined to work on Barry Goldwater’s reactionary presidential campaign. Instead, his biographer, John David Dyche, told me, he advocated for the civil rights supporter Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. His role model was Kentucky Republican Senator John Sherman Cooper, an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam war who helped defeat a filibuster of the Civil Rights Act. He admired Lyndon Johnson’s legislative mastery, Dyche said, and believed politics could serve a larger purpose.

That was then. This is now.

 

[Rhea]

That was then. This is now.

Indeed, it’s hardly a positive character trait when a person regresses from being “high-minded” to being grasping, trnasactional and fascist.

If it were the reverse, I might laud him. But he regressed, and that gets no cheer.

 

[Metaphor]

The GOP is clever enough — if "clever" is an appropriate word to describe blatantly criminal malice — to suppress black votes without legislation that explicitly contains the word "black." Recently I read of a county with very large area that will be given only a single polling place in future elections. Any bets on what the demographics of that county are, Mr. Metaphor?

I have no idea what State you are talking about or what the situation was before or how many people vote there. So no, I don't know what the demographics are.

In some states, voters had to queue for several hours to vote in some precincts, while there were no delays in affluent neighborhoods. Why?

Why indeed? Since I cannot verify anything you are saying, what do you want my response to be? Some states have large rural populations, versus urban, versus city. I suspect all of those populations have different access.

@Metaphor — Why do YOU think the GOP, when in control, adopts measures that appear to be suppression? Do you have enough intellectual curiosity to investigate why queuing times are so different within one state? Or do you just swallow the QOP lie that such things are happenstance?

No. You have moved the stasis of the argument too far. When did I say they appeared to be suppression but where not suppression? They appear to be suppression to some Democrats who think the GOP is morally bankrupt, sure, I'll give you that. Funnily enough, however, it is the Democrats who appear to think the appearance to them is the disinterested one.

Every alleged "voter suppression" bill I have seen appears to me to be perfectly reasonable, including ones that 'restrict' voting conditions but still make voting conditions more 'generous' than some Democrat-run states that nobody complains about. From my perspective, I actually cannot believe how lax some voting conditions are in some American states.

 

[Metaphor]

So he used deceptive math to compare the rate of one sub-group to the whole, thereby hiding the benefits accruing to white voters by including the suppression of minority voters in their number.

Subgroups are compared to the whole all the time in a variety of statistics. In unemployment, in health statistics, in public policy statistics of virtually every kind.

 

[Jarhyn]

When subgroups are used to bury a systemic difference within data, or in other words to
utter a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement, this is generally recognized as evil and fucked up behavior.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anyway, the minority vote is not "suppressed", there is no evidence that it is "suppressed", and I have no particular problem with people, including McConnell, uttering truthful statements about the evidence that reflects that fact.

That you have a problem with truthful statements being uttered is your own problem to understand and deal with.

Technically correct.

What's suppressed is poor people's vote. This is very deliberate:

Texas AG on why he supports the Big Lie: "We're done in Texas if anyone can vote" | Boing Boing

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who’s been peddling “voter fraud” and the Big Lie alongside Donald Trump since day one, is no longer pretending that there are valid reasons for…

boingboing.net

There's a racial pattern to it because black people are disproportionately poor, but the objective is economic, not racial.

 

[Metaphor]

When subgroups are used to bury a systemic difference within data, or in other words to
utter a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement, this is generally recognized as evil and fucked up behavior.

Your assessment of popular morality ("generally recognised") is not something I trust.

 

[Jarhyn]

When subgroups are used to bury a systemic difference within data, or in other words to
utter a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement, this is generally recognized as evil and fucked up behavior.

Your assessment of popular morality ("generally recognised") is not something I trust.

Well, I asked if you recognized whether (see explicitly bolded portion).

I even bolded it knowing you would respond with this.

So, is to utter a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement evil and fucked up behavior? I asked you this and you claimed to not even understand the question.

How can I expect that you even understand my assessment of actual ethics, your morality be damned?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't have much knowledge of psychology, but as I've always understood it from a layman's POV,, there are "Freudian slips" and then there are simple "mispeaks" The former being tied to subconcious beliefs or feelings (often insidious), while the latter is just basic flubbing of words and sentences, something everyone does pretty much daily (unless they are socially isolated to some degree). So, in general, how does one determine whether something said is a genuine "Freudian Slip" or just a simple flubbing of words? Do you need to know a person's background before declaring its a "Freudian Slip", or is it something that is obvious to a casual observer, if you know what to look for? One real life example I can think of from recent times is a TV news anchor who referred to Martin Luther King Day as Martin Luther Coon Day, live on the air. IIRC, he was fired for that, despite his personal protestations that he was not a racist and it was a really unfortunate slip of the tongue. Can we be certain that it was a Freudian Slip, or do we give him the benefit of the doubt? How did you determine that Mitch McConnell's statement was a Freudian Slip and not a mispeak?

For that matter, is a Freudian Slip even a concept that is accepted by the scientific community these days? I know a lot of Freud's ideas have largely been poo-pooed these days, so maybe that one is also?

Yeah, the whole idea is nuts in my book. Today, my wife asked me to put her shrimp in the microwave for 40 minutes--and it's certainly not the first time she's done that. Does she secretly crave food burned to a crisp, or does she occasionally mix up units in what is not a native language to her?

 

[Metaphor]

When subgroups are used to bury a systemic difference within data, or in other words to
utter a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement, this is generally recognized as evil and fucked up behavior.

Your assessment of popular morality ("generally recognised") is not something I trust.

Well, I asked if you recognized whether (see explicitly bolded portion).

I even bolded it knowing you would respond with this.

So, is to utter a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement evil and fucked up behavior? I asked you this and you claimed to not even understand the question.

so how can I expect that you even understand my assessment of actual ethics, your morality be damned?

I have already responded to your bolded part multiple times. I do not agree that McConnell uttered a fact to 'cover up' another fact, and your fantasia that he did is your own problem to deal with.

The minority leader made the remark at a news conference in Washington on Wednesday, when he was asked about concerns that people of color have about voting rights.

“The concern is misplaced because if you look at the statistics, African American voters are voting in just as high a percentage as Americans,” McConnell said.

The only possible thing that McConnell got wrong here is that 'people of color' refers to more than just black people (and to be honest I never know what people are talking about when they say it - they could mean black people, they could mean all non-white people, they could mean all non-white people except Asians, etc).

You've got a lot of heavy lifting to do. You have to show evidence that the 'discussion' was about a group that was not black people, that McConnell knew this, and that McConnell quickly formulated a statement that was a fact, but he did it in order to cover another fact up.

You haven't done any of that heavy lifting. Roll up your robe sleeves.

 

[Toni]

Anyway, the minority vote is not "suppressed", there is no evidence that it is "suppressed", and I have no particular problem with people, including McConnell, uttering truthful statements about the evidence that reflects that fact.

That you have a problem with truthful statements being uttered is your own problem to understand and deal with.

Technically correct.

What's suppressed is poor people's vote. This is very deliberate:

Texas AG on why he supports the Big Lie: "We're done in Texas if anyone can vote" | Boing Boing

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who’s been peddling “voter fraud” and the Big Lie alongside Donald Trump since day one, is no longer pretending that there are valid reasons for…

boingboing.net

There's a racial pattern to it because black people are disproportionately poor, but the objective is economic, not racial.

Black and Hispanic people in TX are more likely to be low income compared with white people in TX.

I read and listened to your link and I don't get how you have come to the conclusion that the objective is to make it harder for poor people to vote, not Hispanic and Black people.

 

[Jarhyn]

<A Derail (shame on you! But fuck me if I'm not laughing)>

So, there is a phenomena in which humans, at least the ones of us with internal dialogue, accidentally blurt out the contents of that internal dialogue.

I have experienced this, and I have absolutely been incomplete or inconsice or ambiguous enough against my "lingual surface" to keep from uttering something of my inner voice out loud, even if I was in the process of trying to "dissipate" the thought.

"Freudian slip" is just the vernacular for when that happens, because Freud first recognized the phenomena academically, even if he was wrong of the particulars of what happens in the mind, as I probably also am, though probably less so.

 

[Jarhyn]

do not agree that McConnell uttered a fact to 'cover up' another fact

I did not ask in the post you are responding to whether McConnell did that thing. Whether he did that thing is not important yet.

I asked whether to utter a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement, is evil and fucked up behavior.

Is uttering a statement to cover up another statement, when it is known to cover a statement evil and fucked up behavior?