Black Congresswoman Lectures Constituents

FoodStampsThumbby Patricia L. Dickson   10/8/14
You cannot make this stuff up! Democratic Rep. Marcia Fudge (Ohio), at a town meeting hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, lectured the black audience for what she called complaining. She spoke in a “you should be ashamed of yourself” tone that would make one feel guilty for complaining. How can they be so ungrateful for all the good things that the Democrats are doing for the black community?

I hope you will spend this much time with your local elected officials. I guarantee you most people in this room have not done that. With your school board, with your city council, and so then you won’t be calling me talking about somebody didn’t come and pick up your trash. You need to call your city council person for that.

And I say it that way because, I need you to understand we all have a role to play and the Congressional Black Caucus cannot do it all by ourselves. Everybody has to do their part…

The black caucus fights for you every day. Even when you won’t fight for yourself. We fight for you. Whether it’s immigration or education, whether it’s food stamps or housing, we fight for you every day. So my message to you is to contain your complaining.

Rep. Fudge even suggested to a roomful of black Americans that the Congressional Black Caucus is fighting for immigration. She did not explain what the CBC was doing to fight for immigration (fighting for or against it). If this was a push to get blacks to get out and vote, it clearly was a condescending tone used to address her own constituents.


PatriciaDicksonPatricia Dickson blogs at Patricia’s Corner.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (959 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Black Congresswoman Lectures Constituents

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    You can bet that if she discussed immigration, she would fudge her data (sorry, I just had to do that). In particular, she would never mention that the unlimited immigration that her party (and thus Fudge herself) pushes (at the behest of Hispanic activists and the Cheap Labor Lobby) hurts the job prospects of the low-skilled black workers in her constituency.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    How dare anyone say that blacks are trying to be kept on a new sort of plantation by Democrats. (I believe it was Deroy Murdock, at NRO, who disagreed strongly by that characterization by Allan West and others, including myself.) But what else can you call it?

    And the same for everyone who receives Social Security. Ultimately these programs do indeed create a dependent mentality…one that is difficult to escape from and that is politically convenient for politicians to continue to encourage. It’s not a “black thing,” per se. It’s a wolf/sheep thing. Shall we continue to be sheep? That is the question all of us need to ask ourselves.

    But “you first,” because much of the power of entitlements is that it puts us into a game-of-lifeboat mentality. If I see someone else’s piggy nose pushing up to the teat of Big Government, it fosters a competitive drive for everyone else to try to shove their noses in too lest they be left out.

    As Mark Steyn says, Big Government changes the relationship between the citizen and the state to that of addict and pusher.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s a very interesting and informative article by Gene Dattel: King Cotton. Substitute “welfare” for “cotton” and you might (barely) have intersection with the subject at hand.

    What happened to this prophecy of extinction? Slavery would have died without the coincidence of two events. A series of innovations in the British cotton textile industry by the late eighteenth century fostered mass production. Correspondingly, the price of a textile garment dropped by over 90 percent between 1787 and 1860. A consumer revolution was born. At the beginning of this period, approximately 77 percent of all European garments were made of wool; on the eve of the Civil War, cotton claimed 73 percent of the market. Enormous hygienic benefits accrued, as well. The appetite for raw cotton was enormous.

    The second key event came about thanks to Eli Whitney, who, failing to get a job after graduating from Yale, went to Georgia as a tutor on a cotton plantation. Within a couple of weeks, in 1793, he had crafted a device which separated cottonseed from the lint which was woven into cloth. A production bottleneck had been solved. Now, instead of only being able to “clean” one pound of cotton a day, a single man could clean fifty. This labor-saving device, in turn, generated an enormous labor shortage—which would be filled by a growing slave population—as the demand for cotton labor skyrocketed.

    The Founding Fathers were blindsided by an economic force—the world demand for cotton—and a king was born. “Cotton alone, of all the products of our soil or industry, stirs the emotions . . . it is the melancholy distinction of cotton to be the very stuff of high drama and tragedy, of bloody civil war and the unutterable woe of human slavery,” wrote David L. Cohn in his 1956 biography of cotton royalty.

    By the way, although I don’t necessarily agree with all the conclusions of this article (such as “Today’s racial tension is a product of this complex series of forces” — I think much of this “tension” has to do with an entrenched grievance industry, not racism) — this is a very good example of someone having written a long article that is also very clear and interesting to read. Does Mr. Dattel have any books? Yes, he certainly does: Cotton and Race in the Making of America: The Human Costs of Economic Power.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The relationship between welfarism and slavery is hardly new. An antebellum Virginia planter, George Fitzhugh, once pointed out (approvingly) the similarity between socialism and slavery. A cartoon in the New Guard (the YAF publication) in the early 1970s featured a planter putting up a sign seeking the return of an escaped slave and wondering why he would run away given all the benefits (such as a guaranteed annual income) he received. For that matter, in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, Pseudolus cheers the prospect of freedom — but is momentarily concerned about the fact that he receives free room and board (“I’m just a slave, and everything is free. If I were free then nothing would be free”) — a reminder of Samuel Johnson’s observation that freedom is the choice between working and starvation (even though Johnson was a staunch Tory and Stephen Sondheim is a staunch modern liberal).

      Technically, a labor-saving device would not create a deficit of labor in and of itself, but one doesn’t expect a liberal to understand microeconomics. He also seems unaware that plenty of slaves worked in tobacco fields, or for that matter in grain fields (George Washington used his that way) or even in factories (I’ve read that Tredegar Iron Works relied heavily on slave labor).

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    On a related concern, Elbert Guillory (the black Louisiana State Senator who very loudly switched from D to R last year) has created an ad attacking Mary Landrieu for doing nothing for blacks, which he discussed tonight on Hannity. He said he switched parties because the Democrats’ values had gone too far to the left.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *