Dr. Corbin: You are race-baiting and fear-mongering

By:    Junaid M. Afeef
        Attorney, Community Organizer, Writer

Will there be race riots in America if Barack Obama loses the election?

One self-described Christian news source reports:

"A political scientist at a Christian college in New York City warns that if Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama loses the election on November 4, race riots could break out in large U.S. cities."

I find this notion totally absurd.

This "political scientist" is Dr. David Corbin.  Dr. Corbin is an adjunct assistant professor of politics at The King's College.  Dr. Corbin received undergraduate and graduate degrees from University of New Hampshire.  He received a PhD in Political Science from Boston University.

Corbin has an interesting history leading up to his most recent absurd statement.

Before earning his PhD Corbin served in the New Hampshire State Legislature from 1998 to 2000 and was an unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate in New Hampshire in 2002.  He ran in all elections as a Republican.

According to The Dartmouth Review David Corbin served on Alan Keyes 2000 presidential campaign as the state chairman of the campaign in New Hampshire. 

Corbin seems to have distinguished his political career on the issue of public education in New Hampshire.  Corbin had a problem with providing all of New Hamsphire's public school children with adequate state funding.

In 2002 during Corbin's failed gubernatorial race The Dartmouth Review reported Corbin as saying he did not believe that the children of New Hamsphire had a right to an education.  Specifically, Corbin said "to say the state encourages an educated public and to say there is a state-wide right to education are two different things."

While Corbin was in the the New Hamsphire legislature he authored legislation that told the State Supreme Court that the legislature would not recognize the Court's ruling that required the state to fund an adequate level of public education (click here to read more).

This brief look at Corbin gives an interesting sense of who he is: an Alan Keyes Republican that does not want to provide adequate public education funding.  This gives one a sense of who Corbin is, but it does not explain his most recent pronouncement - race riots in the event of an Obama loss.

Corbin references the O.J. Simpson and Rodney King incidents and notes that these "seemingly small stories" sparked terrible riots.  He reasons that if such "small stories" could cause such riots, then the loss of the first African American president candidate would be much more severe.

Corbin says:

"I think a lot of people are looking to an Obama presidency to affirm the notion that somehow Americans aren't racist and, if for some reason Senator Obama loses, then it's just, 'Oh well, it's said and done.  We must be a racist nation.' "

First of all - were there riots after the O.J. Simpson verdict?  I don't recall any riots after the O.J. Simpson verdict.

Second, the Rodney King police brutality case is an entirely different set of circumstances from the 2008 presidential elections.  In 1992 four white L.A. police officers were acquitted of brutalizing a black motorist (Rodney King) even though the heinous attacks were captured on videotape and the jury saw this videotape. 

Without going off on a tangent and analyzing the Rodney King riots, it is enough to say that the acquittals of Rodney King's assailants were an acute trauma delivered to a community which had a long history of discriminatory police actions.

If Barack Obama were to lose the presidential election, it is possible that race will have played a role in that loss.  But if this were to happen, it would be easily distinguishable from the Rodney King incidents.  The discrimination in this election is more akin to a chronic ailment that has been festering for centuries in America.

The impact of an Obama loss on the African American community may well be significant, but it will not induce rioting!  Many Americans, particularly African Americans, are anxious to see America's first African American president, but they are, simultaneously, girded for the possibility of loss.

On what research or even anecdotal evidence does Corbin rest his case of riots?  There seems to be none.  Dr. Corbin: you are race-baiting and fear-mongering.

Comments

[scooter]

In a recent article, James Carville agreed with Dr. Corbin's statement (see link). Given your logic in the above article, wouldn't it follow that Mr. Carville is both a race-baiter and fear-monger? It's interesting, to say the least, that a liberal doesn't face the same scorn as Dr. Corbin. Moreover, it also doesn't seem logical that Alan Keyes would hire a racist as his campaign manager, especially in such a crucial state. Also, after actually reading about the Clarmont case in NH (as it looks like our author neglected to do), it would seem Dr. Corbin's objection to the decision was the fact that the Supreme Court of New Hampshire was creating a right. As any "political scientist" knows, the court has the power to interpret laws, not make them. Finally, the feeling of civil unrest and riots that occurred after both the Rodney King riots and OJ Simpson trial were certainly racially motivated, as would any unrest that would occur if Sen. Obama was not elected.

[scooter]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/james-carville-hints

[Junaid M. Afeef]

Scooter:

1.) Here's what Carville said:

CARVILLE: Let me be clear, I said you can call the dogs and light the fire and leave the house. I think it sounds over.

Now let me be clear here, if Obama goes in this race with a 5- point lead and losing this election, the consequences are -- bull, man. I mean I don't think that's going to happen, but I think David it's a point to bring up.

But you stop and contemplate this country if Obama goes in and he has a consistent five point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there.

My Assessment: It's hard to understand what the heck Carville is saying, but you are right, it does sound like he's intimating at unrest (and perhaps riots). So here is my response - yes, that is race baiting and fear mongering too. Just because Carville is a democrat doesn't immunize him from stupid comments.

2. Claremont Decision

The NH Supreme Court rendered an opinion based on their analysis. You can, as did Corbin, characterize it as "creating a right" but obviously that point of view did not carry the day, now did it?

3. You obviously missed the point about acute vs. chronic trauma as pointed out hereinabove. I'm not going to bother re-explaining it here as it was quite clear the first time.

[Scooter]

1. I am glad that you agree that James Carville disserves the same labeling and treatment that you’ve applied to Dr. Corbin. Unfortunately, as with Dr. Corbin, I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a logical argument that would conclusively prove that Mr. Carville has any beliefs that his color makes him superior to others. In fact, not to belabor the point, but I doubt Dr. Corbin would work for Alan Keyes’ Presidential Campaign if he were a racist. Nor, do I believe Mr. Keyes’ would hire him.

Also, its hard to see how Dr. Corbin’s views on education in New Hampshire play into an argument that he is a racist. Moreover, given my previous remark, I don’t think its fair to logically reach the conclusion that Dr. Corbin doesn’t believe in adequately funding education. Rather, he doesn’t believe its the court’s place to create a right (which it isn’t). Although this point did not “carry the day,” American history provides a lot of examples of points that didn’t carry the day (slavery, for instance). It doesn’t necessarily mean we should accept anyone’s logic and use that to justify accepting it.

In closing, my point for bringing the example of Mr. Carville up in this instance is to illustrate the slippery slope that’s created when we attack a man’s name, rather than an argument. Unfortunately, by attacking a man’s name and applying labels (in most cases, illogically) and characterizations to him, it also shows that we can become what we might be seeking to fight: in this case, intolerance.

[Scooter]

Detroit, Oakland, and Philadelphia - cities that have suffered riots before - are bracing for the worst, putting SWAT teams and tactical units on standby....Guess city officials and anyone who authorized riot police to be on standby must be a racist.

[Scooter]

Recently, I was reading Mike Huckabee's new book "Do the Right Thing" and finally found the perfect language for how to describe this and several posts on this sight....

"I call this new breed of political animal, which carriers an attitude of supreme superiority for its "purity," the "faux cons."

When public comments of mine similar to these get published as quotes (whether accurately or not), the blog world lights up with cruel and angry reaction that essentially proves my point. I don't take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it. Faux-cons aren't interested in a spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument. Their passion for their point of view goes beyond "loud and proud" and just substitutes volume for veracity. Faux-cons use dismissive language to accuse those who disagree as being anything from RINOs, socialists, big-government Republicans, or religious nuts. (The tarred me with nearly all those labels.) Once such dramatic lines of demarcation are drawn, an honest dialogue over the details pretty much disappears."

The day you decide not to be a faux-con (an insult I consider as bad as the words you used to describe Dr. Corbin) let me know. Until then, feel free to hide behind your mask of un-spirited and illogical debate.