"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

The Myth of the Racist Republicans

The Claremont Institute has a more detailed analysis than I offered. Here's a relevant chunk of the text:

But the commonality, the philosophical link, is swiftly identified once the Democrats leave the stage. In study after study, authors say that "racial and economic conservatism" married white Southerners to the GOP after 1964. So whereas historically accidental events must have led racists to vote for good men like FDR, after 1964 racists voted their conscience. How convenient. And how easy it would be for, say, a libertarian conservative like Walter Williams to generate a counter-narrative that exposes statism as the philosophical link between segregation and liberalism's economic populism.

Yet liberal commentators commit a further, even more obvious, analytic error. They assume that if many former Wallace voters ended up voting Republican in the 1970s and beyond, it had to be because Republicans went to the segregationist mountain, rather than the mountain coming to them. There are two reasons to question this assumption. The first is the logic of electoral competition. Extremist voters usually have little choice but to vote for a major party which they consider at best the lesser of two evils, one that offers them little of what they truly desire. Segregationists were in this position after 1968, when Wallace won less than 9% of the electoral college and Nixon became president anyway, without their votes. Segregationists simply had very limited national bargaining power. In the end, not the Deep South but the GOP was the mountain.

Second, this was borne out in how little the GOP had to "offer," so to speak, segregationists for their support after 1968, even according to the myth's own terms. Segregationists wanted policies that privileged whites. In the GOP, they had to settle for relatively race-neutral policies: opposition to forced busing and reluctant coexistence with affirmative action. The reason these policies aren't plausible codes for real racism is that they aren't the equivalents of discrimination, much less of segregation.

Why did segregationists settle for these policies rather than continue to vote Democratic? The GOP's appeal was mightily aided by none other than the Democratic Party itself, which was lurching leftward in the 1970s, becoming, as the contemporary phrase had it, the party of "acid, amnesty, and abortion." Among other things, the Democrats absorbed a civil rights movement that was itself expanding, and thus diluting, its agenda to include economic redistributionism, opposition to the Vietnam War, and Black Power. The many enthusiasms of the new Democratic Party drove away suburban middle-class voters almost everywhere in the country, not least the South.

Given that trend, the GOP did not need to become the party of white solidarity in order to attract more voters. The fact that many former Wallace supporters ended up voting Republican says a lot less about the GOP than it does about segregationists' collapsing political alternatives. Kevin Phillips was hardly coy about this in his Emerging Republican Majority. He wrote in 1969 that Nixon did not "have to bid much ideologically" to get Wallace's electorate, given its limited power, and that moderation was far more promising for the GOP than anything even approaching a racialist strategy. While "the Republican Party cannot go to the Deep South"—meaning the GOP simply would not offer the policies that whites there seemed to desire most—"the Deep South must soon go to the national GOP," regardless.

Good stuff. Reasonable, non-craptacular stuff.

54 comments:

Nidsu said...

What will it take for people to realize that the policies that liberals (Dems and Republicans) push for are very discriminatory? Affirmative action is the poster child for discrimination. "We don't believe that you can do it on your own so we will set the bar a little lower. Oh and while we're at it we'll set some quotas that don't require you to be the best candidate just the right ethnicity."

Instead of constantly lowering the bar, remove race from the decisions by removing the politically correct regulation.

Hunter Baker said...

I've always thought the right place for intervention is much earlier than jobs or college admissions. Equal opportunity is really about two things:

Education and family situations.

That's why there was No Child Left Behind and a pro-marriage movement designed to encourage the formation of nuclear families among the underclass.

Did the left like it? No, they hated it.

Tlaloc said...

"Affirmative action is the poster child for discrimination."

Personally I tend to agree. AA is an attempt to solve a real problem nut it is the wrong way to go about it.

Tlaloc said...

"That's why there was No Child Left Behind and a pro-marriage movement designed to encourage the formation of nuclear families among the underclass.

Did the left like it? No, they hated it."

Well, Gosh! NCLB was a way to further emaciate public schools so that they were even more ineffective so that private schools seem like a good idea. Remember all of it's UNFUNDED mandates?

Yeah that's a real winner as far as providing equitable education, Hunter.

The "pro-marriage" movement is nothing more than another swipe at the gays.

Seriously have you looked at these issues? There's what they say they do and then there's what they really are and the two are entirely different.

Much as the "FAIR" act to "help" the victims of asbestos is really about limiting damages to asbestos companies at the expense of their victims. You have to read between the lines in politics, Hunter. Naivete is a sin in washington.

Matt Tapie said...

Very helpful HB, thanks for posting that.

S. T. Karnick said...

Note to all: A comment appeared on this page in which the person repeatedly called another person's statements "bull." I removed that comment, and the individual who originally sent it reposted it. If this comment is reposted again, or any other comment including unacceptable demeanor is submitted, I will remove all comments by the individual involved. Thanks for your consideration.

Hunter Baker said...

Again, T, you speak without knowing what the hell you are talking about. The marriage movement to which I'm referring is pegged at encouraging marriage among the poor. I posted a potent array of statistics showing how children perform better with married parents than with the alternatives. A group of people in government and think tanks have been working to remedy the situation for years.

Again, quit talking out of your arse when you have no idea.

Tlaloc said...

"The marriage movement to which I'm referring is pegged at encouraging marriage among the poor."

What movement is that exactly? The only major marriage initiatives in the last five years I'vwe seen have all focused around excluding gays. If you can point me toward all these bills and ballot measures that are geared to help poor people form nuclear families I'll cheerfully recind the statement.

S. T. Karnick said...

I call on the individual who keeps reposting an offending item, to have some decency and stop. Please.

Hunter Baker said...

Get off the court, T. I'm openly inviting you. You repeatedly make arrogant statements about things you know nothing about.

A grasp of elementary logic and good google skills aren't enough to play in this league. We're tired of the third grade novelty act.

Tlaloc said...

"Get off the court, T. I'm openly inviting you. You repeatedly make arrogant statements about things you know nothing about."

Funny how when I ask you to back something up your response is to claim I know nothing. Why don't you just put up the evidence? You claim there is a major movement to help the poor marry. So show me. Direct me to the bills and ballots that prove your point.

Tlaloc said...

"I call on the individual who keeps reposting an offending item, to have some decency and stop. Please."

Look Karnick if I post something that really offends and it is deleted on that basis I don't repost it. You may recall the "ball-gag" joke. I knew it was pushing the envelope for the site and it was fair game for you guys to call foul. You deleted the comment I didn't repost it.

That's not the case here. I've used "bull" plenty of times with nary a peep. What you are objecting to is an argument you don't like, not an offensive choice of words. When you get confronted with ugly truths you are choose to shoot the messenger. Well not all messengers take that lying down.

How you choose to reconcile your parties devotion to bigotry is up to you and I am emphatically not saying that all republicans are bigots. But the overall party structure absolutely has adjusted so as to absorb bigots and to foster them because they happen to go along with the overall class warfare plank of the party.

Tlaloc said...

Like I said I'm in a rotten mood and I'm probably letting the kid gloves come off a little more than I usually do here.

If you don't want to have a discussion board you certainly don't have to. You can just turn comments off. If you don't want me here you could always try asking me to leave. But if you create a public board (as in anyone can access) and invite commentary and then spend a great deal of time erasing any post that makes you all frowny don't expect a lot of sympathy.

In the real world people get confronted with fact they don't like all the time. The adult thing to do is to learn to accept them, not to shut one's ears and yell. This is exactly what is wrong with punidrty in general and think tanks in specific: they become ideological filters for information and lead their memebrs to lose all touch with reality.

In the real world we don't get to choose to only talk to those we agree with, and that is absolutely a good thing. Try it, you might like it after you get over the initial ego bruising (which we ALL have gone through including me).

S. T. Karnick said...

I call upon the person who posted an offending comment, to end this discussion. I do not care in the slightest what anybody on the site argues, as long as it is done without offensive characterizations of other persons or their statements.

I ask all commenters to be considerate of all others and to keep the discussion on an elevated plane. That is all.

Hunter Baker said...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/marriage/interviews/horn.html

This is the link to an interview with Wade Horn. Formerly president of the Fatherhood Initiative and key figure in the marriage movement. His elevation to a spot in HHS was a victory for the movement granted by George W. Bush.

Get off the court, really.

S. T. Karnick said...

Tlaloc, I will address you directly: Please leave, if you do not wish to participate in a discussion on the same plane that all others who visit this site are willing to be on.

The Classic Liberal Anonymous said...

For heavens sake, please google "healthy marriage initiative"

Hunter Baker said...

I have to add that all this reminds me of a high school debate I once witnessed. It was on bioethics and one participant raised the issue of euthanasia. A young man on the other team arrogantly announced, "I don't see what kids in China have to do with this!"

Tlaloc, you've made that kind of red butt hanging out of your pants mistake twice in the last several days. Instead of wincing and pulling your britches back up, you just blunder on flinging poo like a primate without any sense of shame. It's embarrassing for all the wrong people.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, I will address you directly: Please leave, if you do not wish to participate in a discussion on the same plane that all others who visit this site are willing to be on."

Precisely what plane is that? And more importantly is it a standard that you apply equally to yourself as well as commentors you disagree with politically?

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, you've made that kind of red butt hanging out of your pants mistake twice in the last several days. Instead of wincing and pulling your britches back up, you just blunder on flinging poo like a primate without any sense of shame. It's embarrassing for all the wrong people."

I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to, I am however reading currently the link you provided.

S. T. Karnick said...

In response to two questions directed to me:

Our policy, as stated in the sidebar on our main page, is not to explain simple good manners to individuals. It should be perfectly evident that characterizing others' arguments as "bull" is not conducive to a sensible discussion. And that is the kind of discussion we wish to hold.

I will be happy to withdraw any comment of my own that any reader can point to as being untoward. I shall venture to guess that few, if any, such will be found, however.

Tlaloc said...

"This is the link to an interview with Wade Horn. Formerly president of the Fatherhood Initiative and key figure in the marriage movement. His elevation to a spot in HHS was a victory for the movement granted by George W. Bush. "

Okay had a chance to look at the link. The man does indeed appear to be interested in promoting marriage in general and avoids gay gratuitous gay bashing. That's great that he got an undersecretary job in the administration. How you can compare that to the NCLB (a huge government program that was passed through congeress and signed into law) though evades me.

Sure you can say it's a good step to get the guy into what reasonably looks like a good position but where exactly is the pudding?

Tlaloc said...

"Our policy, as stated in the sidebar on our main page, is not to explain simple good manners to individuals. It should be perfectly evident that characterizing others' arguments as "bull" is not conducive to a sensible discussion. And that is the kind of discussion we wish to hold."

Hrrrm. Would calling someone an idiot and making fun of their name be good manners? Hunter did both in this very posting. See why I indicate you operate a severe double standard?



"I will be happy to withdraw any comment of my own that any reader can point to as being untoward."

That is gracious of you, however it misses the larger point which is that even if you personally operate with perfect civility it is not the rule of the land (this board) by any stretch of the imagination. Hunter thinks I'm being idiotic and "red butt"-ed. That's fine. I think he's making specious arguments that he knows are false. Yet you ant to pretend the incivility is all on my side.

A little healthy antagonism is nothing to fear. It can be a very good motivation. And done without malice it can also be extremely healthy. I absolutely hate much of what Hunter believes in but I don't hate him. I hope he can unlearn the lessons that he been miseducated to believe. He undoubtfully feels the same in return.

S. T. Karnick said...

Let me clarify: I request that ALL individuals commenting on the site hold to the standards Hunter has outlined in his latest posting. No exceptions, please.

I understand that people do get frustrated at others' refusal to be persuaded by their undoubtedly gold-plated arguments, but that is no excuse for any particular individual to bring the discussion further into the gutter. Please simply show good manners even when others don't: it does one no credit to be calm when others agree with you, but it does great credit to be decent and pertinent when the going gets rough. That applies to all of us.

I hope that this clarifies things sufficiently.

Hunter Baker said...

Red butt mistake #1:

Crazily asserting that the majority of critical New Testament/Jesus scholars are believing Christians. Obviously speaking confidently about something you had no knowledge about.

Red butt mistake #2:

Proclaiming that the marriage movement I spoke about was aimed at the gay marriage debate. Again, speaking confidently about something you clearly knew little/nothing about.

Red butt mistake #3:

Failing to acknowledge that you spoke/wrote too hastily and really didn't know what you were so quick to assert. This last is a general error and happens so often as to constitute a continuing error.

James Elliott said...

No Child Left Behind

Wow. Way to forget that Ted Kennedy helped right and pass the damn thing.

NCLB is a horrible, horrible law with a laudable goal. Not only do the ends not justify the means, the means within the law will never result in the end-goal.

S. T. Karnick said...

Mr. Elliott, I tend to share your opinion of NCLB. The nation's education system is so messed up that it seems that everything anybody tries to do to fix it only creates more problems.

James Elliott said...

You claim there is a major movement to help the poor marry.

I do believe Hunter is referring to, among other things, requirements within the rules of welfare reform that were meant to encourage marriage. (Interestingly enough, a ten year longitudinal study found that the welfare rules had no impact on marriage rates but did create a rise in cohabitation. If anyone is interested, I have the study on my laptop at home and they can email me - jim@pley.net - if they want a copy.)

There is also a push from DHHS to encourage women to go to school and marry before having children. We had the pamphlets all over the office when I was working at Silver Creek High School last year. Hunter is correct that there are movements to encourage the poor to marry, and Hunter is again right that there are a myriad of statistics and programs that promote this - married couples tend to do better financially and socially (emotionally is an entirely other matter).

Tlaloc is correct in a sense to point out that the larger national debate is not about the creation of nuclear families but about ending the completely mythical "threat" that gay marriage poses to "traditional" (whatever the heck that means) marriage, having supplanted the far more serious and pervasent "divorce threat." The programs Hunter speaks of are eclipsed by that larger debate, and many are not known to those who don't make an active living studying or working within welfare or education.

James Elliott said...

right

Should be "write." I need to stop writing too quickly and start proofreading.

Tlaloc said...

"Crazily asserting that the majority of critical New Testament/Jesus scholars are believing Christians. Obviously speaking confidently about something you had no knowledge about."

So I make an assertion and you make an assertion. Neither of us has offered any proof. Okay. You claim I'm full of it. Fine. So ask me to back it up. Tell you what why don't we compare the number of secular universities with biblical studies degrees and the number of religious schools with the same. What do you want to bet the ratio is heavily lopsided?



"Proclaiming that the marriage movement I spoke about was aimed at the gay marriage debate. Again, speaking confidently about something you clearly knew little/nothing about."

You claimed a major marriage movement. The ONLY major marriage movement in the last few years has been against gays. That is true. There does appear to be a small movement doing what you say. They have made some small changes. Hoepefully you can see where your statements were misleading.

It'd be like if I said the Yankees and the Redsox are both great teams and when you argued about the Yankees history I revealed that I did not in fact mean the NY Yankees but instead the Chesterfield Yankees" a small town team in the minors.



"Failing to acknowledge that you spoke/wrote too hastily and really didn't know what you were so quick to assert. This last is a general error and happens so often as to constitute a continuing error."

I was wrong about the particular marriage movement you were referring to but as above I had significant help along that path from you, Hunter. It's not exactly fair of you to call it my mistake.

James Elliott said...

Mr. Karnick, I could go on and on about No Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Reauthorization) of 2004 (my personal bete-noir). I have written numerous papers on how bad those laws are, how unethical, and how they do not and cannot meet their ends via the requirements they outline.

I believe Tlaloc was quite right in contending that NCLB amounted to little more than an active attempt to undermine public education in poor and low-income areas (the target areas for pilot school voucher programs).

In my eagerness to undermine Hunter's "Ooo, look, the left hates school children" meme, I neglected to mention that, much like Elwood's original welfare reform bill, the final NCLB bill wasn't a whole lot like the one originally drafted.

Hunter Baker said...

James, you clearly know what I am talking about with regard to the marriage issue. Because you know you are in a position to discuss it. My basic point in all of this is that an individual should not jump in with commentary about areas in which he/she is clearly not conversant. It forces the rest of us back to remediation.

The same is true with regard to the critical NT/Jesus scholar thing. It is obvious that Tlaloc does not even know what a critical NT/Jesus scholar even is. Here's a hint: the religion departments of the state colleges and universities are full of them. And they are not card-carrying evangelicals if you get my drift.

James Elliott said...

James, you clearly know what I am talking about with regard to the marriage issue.

Marriage and poverty are like affirmative action and racial disparity: Neither is a magical silver bullet, slaying the ills that their target causes. But they're both part of a solution. The grand mistake with affirmative action that the Left made was to stop viewing it as part of a process and to let it stand as the solution.

Karnick said...

As a person who rarely posts on these comment boards, I find it very unfortunate that you, Tlaloc, insist on being argumentative in response to in nearly every comment you make. Through my personal perusal of many of your recent posts, you like most other posters, seem to make many claims with little or no evidence backing them up. Still, however, your general tone is one of arrogance and superiority toward everyone else here. Please note that I am not intent on being unfair or unkind toward you, I am simply trying to articulate to you the sentiments that many on the board appear to be feeling. You should also note the tone of every other poster on this board. Everyone seems to be displaying great respect and humility except you. Please do not take this with a grain of salt. While your comments, in my opinion, are indeed appreciated, please recognize that you are not an expert nor are you omniscient and that another's opinions are just as valid as yours are.

The Classic Liberal Anonymous said...

The grand mistake with affirmative action that the Left made was to stop viewing it as part of a process and to let it stand as the solution.

I agree in principle. AA addresses the issue too far down the pipeline for it to do any good. Further, there is a certain amount of illegitimacy that is felt by minorites on some college campuses.

I'll state again for the record that (IMHO) there are more effective ways to deal with the issue.

I can only hope that that is the beginning or a real debate on the subject (as opposed to the "debates" where anyone for choice called a racist bigot who hates children).

Tlaloc said...

"I find it very unfortunate that you, Tlaloc, insist on being argumentative in response to in nearly every comment you make."

For me the debate is the highest form of truth seeking. It's not everyone's cup of tea of course.



"Through my personal perusal of many of your recent posts, you like most other posters, seem to make many claims with little or no evidence backing them up."

Certainly, I maintain though that when someone disputes what I've said I will in fact try to back it up.



"Still, however, your general tone is one of arrogance and superiority toward everyone else here."

Fair enough, I'm certainly aware I can be arrogant and in this medium more so than others.



"You should also note the tone of every other poster on this board. Everyone seems to be displaying great respect and humility except you."

Now this is where I have to strenuously disagree with you. The arrogance has been anything but one sided. Nor has the respect. The reform clubbers have frequently insulted me and my beliefs. That's fine except that when it goes the other way they call foul. I don't mind a rough game at all. What I mind is a game that is fixed so that one side has all the advantages.



"While your comments, in my opinion, are indeed appreciated, please recognize that you are not an expert nor are you omniscient and that another's opinions are just as valid as yours are."

No I'm not omniscient, and I don't think I've claimed to be. But as regards opinions you are only half right. Opinions on subjective matters can be said to be equally valid. Objective matters is another thing entirely.

That is if you like strawberry ice cream and I like vanilla your opinion is just as valid as mine. But if your opinion is say that Republicans never courted racist southern democrats then it's not because its a matter of objective history and the facts would say you are absolutely wrong.

Tlaloc said...

" My basic point in all of this is that an individual should not jump in with commentary about areas in which he/she is clearly not conversant. It forces the rest of us back to remediation"

Okay tell you what I'll conceed the issue about bible scholars if you'll conceed Intelligent Design. Deal?

Funny how you feel fine with stepping onto my turf but object to me on yours.

Tlaloc said...

And just to be clear here Hunter I said that the majority of bible scholars are going to have a vested interest in that they would be christians. You really want to argue that if we take a statistical sampling of bible scholars here in the states you;ll end up with more atheists than christians? It'd be a real bad bet considering the overall population is ~80% christian by self identification.

Come on, this is simple common sense. In a population that has a strong majority of christians and in a subject that is of principle interest to christians (not exclusive but priniciple) the population of the field is going to me more christian than the overall population not less.

Hunter Baker said...

On the contrary, T, I've never held myself out as an authority on intelligent design and have generally couched my statements in such a way as to openly admit that I am no expert. Rather, I have commented on the way in which the debate is conducted and what I have observed as a non-scientist. My assertions in this area have always been careful. Were you to conduct yourself in the same way, I would never have taken issue in the first place.

James Elliott said...

I suspect that "Karnick" is not the same person as S.T. Karnick. The latter's posts are grammatically correct and polished. The former's paragraph was not.

Hunter Baker said...

"Bible scholars"

Keep reinforcing the "don't know what you are talking about" factor. My reference (and Habermas') was to critical NT scholars. You don't know what that is or what it means, so you keep blundering about.

Get. A. Clue.

Kathy Hutchins said...

The grand mistake with affirmative action that the Left made was to stop viewing it as part of a process and to let it stand as the solution

Any public policy like affirmative action creates an immobile constituency out of the people who are engaged in implementing the program. They are the people most knowledgeable about the intricacies and details of the program, the ones who know where it is failing and succeeding, yet at the same time the ones most resistant to change directed from outside. The Left makes the mistake of ignoring or forgetting about this constituency's natural human tendencies to myopia and inertia. The Right makes the mistake of projecting nothing but greed and self-interest onto this constituency.

I respect James's contributions of information and analysis about welfare and education policy. He's seen how these programs are implemented and has thought about them carefully. (I'll only note in rueful passing that I have similarly detailed experience in both CMS and NSF, yet lefties don't seem to inclined to cut me any slack. Sniff.) What I would really, really like is to be able to convince James that many conservative proposals are motivated by a desire to make the plight of his clients better, and that we might make progress if we'd put aside some of the mistrust and poisoned rhetoric.

Tlaloc said...

"Keep reinforcing the "don't know what you are talking about" factor. My reference (and Habermas') was to critical NT scholars. You don't know what that is or what it means, so you keep blundering about.

Get. A. Clue."

Actually I just went back and reviewed the thread and no you didn't. The term NT is used once as a description of the author. Many times you refer to just "scholars" and "scholarship."

Before you get so high and mighty it's worth reviewing the accuracy of your terms.

And I'm still wondering how it is you think that the majority of NT scholars are not Christian.

Hunter Baker said...

Go back to the original post.

Karnick said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tlaloc said...

"Go back to the original post. "

I have, have you?


You first mentioned the subject in "Faith in the Quad." I disputed it and you moved the topic to a new thread called "Justice v. the Resurrection."

Look at that thread Hunter.

Search it as I have.
Number of times the word critical was used: 0. Zip. Nada.

Number of times NT was used (matching the case): once by ME (quoting the original author.

Number of times scholar or scholarship shows up: 5

You keep claiming to have been clearly talking about "critical NT scholars." Well maybe if you;d actually said that in the first place we could have avoided this argument. And having made your point obscure could you please refrain from attacking me for not getting it?

Karnick said...

"I suspect that 'Karnick' is not the same person as S.T. Karnick. The latter's posts are grammatically correct and polished. The former's paragraph was not."

I find it unfortunate that you for some reason decided to attack me. If my typing error really offended you then I apologize. However, nothing I said warranted a response from you, so I don't understand why you would make such a comment. Still, for the sake of clarity, I will strive in the future to keep my comments grammatically "correct", as you say.

Please note, the fact that in all my responses I am trying to be respectful to all of you, despite my taking great offense to your tone and insults. I would appreciate the same from you. Unfortunately, I do not expect such behaviour, so from here on I will disregard any personal attacks or insults you make.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Please note, the fact that in all my responses I am trying to be respectful to all of you, despite my taking great offense to your tone and insults. I would appreciate the same from you. Unfortunately, I do not expect such behaviour, so from here on I will disregard any personal attacks or insults you make.

Your thoughts are a welcome addition to the board, Karnick, and welcome.

Although ignoring insults does move the discussion ahead, you are under no obligation to do so. "Turn the other cheek" might be better translated as "offer the other cheek as well," after an offense to your person. This acknowledges the insult, and shames the offender.

Civility, good cheer, and a Christian heart do not require you to be anyone's punching bag.

Further, you do bullies a Christian favor by pointing out the shame in the violence of their words or their actions, and deepen the lesson by not responding in kind.

Hunter Baker said...

Actually, the post was "Slamming the Door on Another Counterargument" where I raised the point about critical scholars and where the relevant comments were made.

James Elliott said...

I find it unfortunate that you for some reason decided to attack me. If my typing error really offended you then I apologize.

No offense was intended, Mr. Karnick. Of all the posters here, I have never held ill will towards you; in point of fact, you have always conducted yourself as, in my opinion, the most consistently polite, principled, and intelligent of all who post here, blogger and commenter alike.

My comment arose from the change in handle from "S.T. Karnick," which has an accompanying biography, to "Karnick," which does not and I had never witnessed you post under. I apologize if it is indeed yourself, and please, no attack was intended upon either yourself or your abilities. I was merely attempting to illustrate why I suspected there was a difference.

Karnick said...

I am not, in fact, S. T. Karnick. I am his son, A. T. Karnick. Though I appreciate the unintentional compliment in your reply.

James Elliott said...

Oh! That makes so much more sense now. Okay. Well, still, no offense intended. I thought someone might be trying to stir things up by using your father's name.

Pleasure to "meet" you.

Tlaloc said...

"Actually, the post was "Slamming the Door on Another Counterargument" where I raised the point about critical scholars and where the relevant comments were made. "

Okay fine, I'd like to point out that that was after the post I referenced and hence we were already well into the argument at the point you made that distinction.

Actually upon re-examining that thread I find you put it this way:

"Jesus scholar or a theologian or an NT critic"

That's a bit more broad than exclusively "NT critic" wouldn't you say? The term "theologian can easily encompass "bible scholar," the term you keep berating me for using.

Are you sure you haven't been more than a tad unfair toward me in this accusation?

Karnick said...

"Pleasure to 'meet' you."

The pleasure's all mine.