New Hampshire's Peculiar Institution

You have got to be kidding!! This commentary is the ultimate example of exxageration to make a point and for you to trivialize the civil rights struggle in this manner is disgusting and obscene. The entire commentary is intentionally offensive towards the voters of New Hampshire and that line of political attack is in the tradition of a Rush Limbaugh or someone like that.

To be unequal before the law in voting rights is a civil rights issue, even when white people are among the injured class along with people of color. There is no exaggeration here, it is simply a different civil rights issue. As long as New Hampshire insists on being above all other Americans, it perpetrates an injustice.

Bunk! First off, the reason we don't have a rotating primary (or caucus) schedule is because in years past, many states haven't wanted to participate in such a system. For several of those states, especially the smaller ones, when the idea has been discussed, the expense and effort of either holding a second primary (or caucus) at an uncertain date wasn't worth the trouble. For farm states especially, having campaign season at the wrong time of the year can affect their whole economy.

But more to the point of responding to your comment, since we have had the traditional schedule of primaries, the people of New Hampshire have made a very conscientous effort to try and consider the political issues of the entire country, rather than their own parochial interests. Issues including civil rights in the fifties and farm workers rights in the sixties first came to national attention because of the New Hampshire primary. If it wasn't for New Hampshire, we probably would have wound up in Viet Nam for another decade. To compare the fact that they traditionally hold the first in the nation primary a fact which other states have gladly ceded to them(in part because they created the very first Presidential primary which was a huge step forward for the country and is recognized as such by almost everyone) with something like civil rights injustices where people were killed for trying to vote, is just sick and shows absolutely no sense of proportion and as I said before is an insult to people who have been trying to make our current system work.

If you really want to change the system to something that rotates between the states, that is a fair argument to make, but you should at least acknowledge that if smaller states don't in some way go first (and since we live in California, which is what I suspect the original post is really all about), progressive causes will tend to lose out to special interests who have the needed money to help candidates they support in larger states and that to pass such a plan, in some way you will have to make sure that all states are willing to participate in such a system, because if they don't participate, you just have a different group of states enjoying more power than others and if we are going to give special privileges to anyone, then certainly New Hampshire should have first call, because they haven't abused their power and privilege in the past.

"white" homeland of NH? What a joke....get your fat butt over here and you'll see how white we are...geesuz how ignorant can you get.

I have no desire to engage in discourse with someone who starts off his diatribe with "Bunk!" as such discourse holds little promise of being either courteous or enlightened.

As for the tenor of "NH's" post, what could better prove my point about New Hampshire? But let's put the histrionics aside and consider the facts. From the 2000 US Census:

African-American:
New Hampshire 0.7%
United States 12.3%

Asian:
New Hampshire 1.3%
United States 3.6%

Hispanic:
New Hampshire 1.7%
United States 12.5%

Yes, New Hampshire is a white homeland. Even Idaho has more ethnic diversity.

That is still bunk! After comparing the first in the nation New Hampshire primary with the fight to end segregation in the South, a fight were people were killed, many activists spent months in jail and were the other side paid residents to spy on civil rights activists, you now complain because of my choice of wording. To me that still shows an incredible lack of proportion. As for your numbers on ethnic makeup, that's a fair point, except you completely skip the fact that many of the advances in civil rights in this country came about precisely because the people of New Hampshire have always looked at their primaries from the perspective of what was best for the nation overall, not their own parochial interests. The question to be debated is whether the system would be fairer with a rotation and whether such a system could be implemented or whether things were better off as they currently stand where New Hampshire residents take so much pride in going first that they put an incredible amount of time into making their decision. A change may be appropriate, but to criticize the system and to compare the primary system with something as evil as segregation (and by extension to compare New Hampshire residents with Southern segregationists) shows once again your complete lack of perspective and balance.

As I said earlier, starting out with "Bunk!" is not likely to result in a civil and rational exchange. I never mentioned segregation, so all that ranting about it can go right in the can. I do point out that voting rights are civil rights, and by insisting on always being first, New Hampshire infringes on the voting rights of the rest of the citizens of this country. And, New Hampshire defends its privileged status with ubermensch superiority. New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith wrote:

"What other state parties ignore is that with this privilege comes a unique responsibility and a unique burden. New Hampshire citizens are fully aware of their responsibilities in the area of picking presidential nominees. They take this responsibility seriously.... We have survived and refined this process over the past several decades, and I believe we provide America with an extraordinary service in reviewing and assessing the candidates...."

Separate and unequal. This patronizing, plantation mentality belongs in another era, when Rudyard Kipling wrote of "the White Man's Burden." For such views to be expressed in the 21st century is bizarre. Since the word "evil" has been used, I'll use it, too. The evil is in refusing to examine one's basic assumptions and their consequences. It's a small and all too human evil in and of itself, but from it what monsters may grow.

You are right, you didn't mention segregation, you compared the primary system we have in this country today to the slave system of the antebellum South. At a time when so many people are describing themselves as being turned off on politics because of the hyperbole and demonization involved in the process the comments you made were out of place and inappropriate. They also showed a lack of effort towards finding an answer to your opponents concerns since as I pointed out in my earlier post, there is an ongoing opposition in many states to a rotating primary system, but the bigger point was that you were engaging in a gross exageration to make your point and it was uncalled for.

You have made a logical error: to analogize is not the same as to equate. A pit bull and a Rottweiler are similar, but they are not the same. It is you who have speciously equated slavery and the New Hampshire primary in order to set up a straw man to rant against, whereas I only draw the analogy to illustrate the rigid mindset of superiority common to the two. As for hyperbole, you seem to be quite adept: "exxageration [sic], disgusting and obscene, offensive, political attack, in the tradition of a Rush Limbaugh, bunk, still bunk, an incredible lack of proportion, complete lack of perspective and balance, demonization, out of place and inappropriate, gross exageration [sic], uncalled for." This isn't even argument, in the sense of a logical progression statements in support of one or more propositions, it's mere name-calling.

Re: NH being a "white homeland"

I am from NH and have lived out of state and abroad, including Africa and the Caribb., for over 15 years. I am currently residing in PA. NH was never diverse enough for me until I moved to PA. The white population in PA is extremely white whereas where I am from in NH many people are French Canadian mixed with Native American. Moreover, many of my classmates were also Greek-, Italian-, Puerto Rican-, Cuban-, Irish-, Armenian- American, etc. Thanks to my stay in PA I have come to realize that NH is one of the most diverse and exotic places I have ever lived. All in all, for a state that is 80% trees, NH is extremely diverse.

Post a comment