Why Black People Don’t Care that GOP Is Civil Rights Party

You may want to have a look at this article for more clarity.

Link

LaShawn, you are so dead on right.

There is a political divide in this country between those who vote Democrat and those who vote Republican. A huge, gelatenous blob wiggles around between the two.

Blacks long ago joined the Democrat side, Every year, a few blacks wander over to the Republican side, but only because they independently saw the reasoning behind conservatism.

I think “selling” conservatism is like trying to sell democracy in a country where the peasants like the immediacy of a Marxist fix.

When Uncle Sam is Uncle Sugar and you have come to rely on his handouts, you sure don’t want to hear about giving up the benefits. That’s not a “Black Thing” either. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription Drugs, etc. are all fiscally bankrupt, but that is a problem for our children. For now, just make sure my check isn’t late.

My mailbox is full of solicitations from conservative black Republicans who are running for Congress. They are the only contributions I am making this year. Perhaps we can chip away at the insidious “Black Caucus” and lead by conservative example.

Democrats are the masters of machine politics. They know the obligations of constantly manipulating the voters at the ward level. And now, they have a very astute manipulator as their Presidential nominee.

If you have not read the New Yorker article, you should. It paints a clear picture of an unprincipled candidate and how he has manipulated the machinery.

Democrats know how to pander and how to smear the Republicans when the pandering doesn’t come to fruition. That is a very hard tactic to oppose.

There are many true liberals among the Democrats who long ago decided to apply a certain socialism among the poor as a way of housing and feeding them. They are sold on their good works and believe that much more redistribution of wealth is in order. It is all just more “machinery” to them. Eliminate guns and you eliminate most crime. Free health care will help people with their obesity and drug and alcohol problems. Public transportation will take cars off the road. Government jobs will end discrimination, give the less advantaged a job and provide self esteem and dignity. The list goes on and on.

If you buy the Uncle Sugar program, why would anyone want to be a Republican?

This piece sounds like its stuck in a time warp. The latest example that you could come up with regarding a pro-civil rights President was 35 yrs ago – President Nixon. After 8 yrs of Bush and and friends, I wouldn’t go out of my way to even encourage whites to vote republican because they’ve made such a mockery of the conservatism. And i’ve been a black member of the part for the past 18 years.

My hat goes off to Obama, he’s preached self responsibility for blacks AND government responsibility prior to running for POTUS and he’s continuing with that message despite what ultra-conservatives and older black liberals are suggesting. (I guess that’s why Jesse wanted to cut his nuts off).

My hat goes off to Obama, he’s preached self responsibility for blacks

Except for when it comes to the issue of “unplanned pregnancy”. He said it himself that he wouldn’t want one of his daughters “punished with a child” should she be irresponsible enough to get pregnant as a teenager.

Barlett says; “The point of the book was to give Republicans a story to tell to make it easier for them to go into the black community to seek votes.”

Seek “VOTES”….that sums it up there, doesn’t it?

Almost anyone who is fimiliar with American political history knows that racism and segregation was the platform of the Southern Democratic party post reconstruction. Barlett is correct when citing the “Southern stategy” was used by Nixon presidential campaign in order to secure votes in the South.

Yet, Barlett does not tell the entire story. As he sums it up in his e-mail to La Shawn, the bottom line is VOTES! In the 1968 presidential election not “ONE” Southern state went to the Democratic party candidate(Humphrey). Wallace ran as an Independent and garnered a total of 5. By 1972 all of the states that were Democratic strongholds turned their VOTES to the Republican Nixon. I honestly don’t believe that all those racist voting Democrats just “died-off” within an eight year period.

Barlett also needs to get his facts straight on Affirmative Action. Nixon did not “create” Affirmative Action. The first AA program, Executive Order 11246, was issued by President Johnson in 1965, and later amended by Executive Order 11375. The actual concept was drafted by the Kennedy administration in 1961 with Executive Order 10.925.

ElCee says:

“I really don’t believe there is anything any Republican can say that will change their minds.”

I can give you a dozen or more things that Republicans can say that will change their minds, but they won’t say it, because it not expedient for their careers, nor would it be beneficial for their personal lives. It’s less about politics than it is about world view, and how they see non-whites.

LaShawn says:

“You know, I couldn’t care less whether or not Republicans care about me. Do they care about the country, is the question, not what they’re going to do for black people. Do we share similar morals and values. But hey, different strokes for different folks.”

Good point, LaShawn. As I said, they are like co-workers, they may be indifferent to you, and you may not be pressed either, but as long as they do their work and mind their own business and don’t make it hard for you to do yours (which, in CONTEXT, was the larger historical problems with ALL non-whites), then it’s all good.

LaShawn you mentioned this fear of a return to Jim Crow.. well.. for too many this fear, as ridiculous as it may seem when given a cursory glance, has some truth to it. (The FEAR, that is..)

THIS is where policy about social issues come in, because, as I said before, people are lawless. People want to legislate abortion and homosexuality, but wink at legislation about employment, housing, or educational discrimination OR make it difficult to PROVE such discrimination exists.

“Getting government to keep it’s nose out of who I want to hire, or rent my home to, or allow in my school”…is what is believed to be the sentiment widely held by this partisan group, and they do LITTLE to refute that, other than sing that song by the Eagles “Get Over It”.

So on one side it’s not deep at all, but on the other side, it’s very deep. I didn’t post this to talk too much about the deep side, because it is, frankly, too deep.

Being a recent transplant to North Carolina, I was surprised to learn that blacks had their right to vote taken from them at the turn of the 20th century by the Democratic party, once the Democrats won back control of the state from so called fusionists i.e. Republicans and Populists (both blacks and whites) working together. Go figure!

Thank you David!

“When I was 18 I registered as a Democrat because both my parents and every other black person I knew was a Democrat, and I didn’t know or care much about politics. I am now a conservative independent, but it wasn’t until I was seasoned in life, and became a Christian.”

Nearly every “black” conservative/independent/libertarian I know shares the same story as you and I do. Started out Democrat, realized they were full of it, got Saved, and are now Independent at least. Amongst those, many of them know the obscene and godless spirit behind many of the “bootstrap”, “personal responsibility”, “small government”, “Nanny State”, “moonbat” and “states rights” sentiments, and try not lose ALL good sense about whom their dealing with.

I don’t know too many Saved Libertarians though. The ones I know are too “cool” for all of that.

Oh, and I meant to respond to #1 by saying that the article is wrong for the following reason:

The entire nation of the United States was reprobate, lawless, and corrupt for it’s treatment of those Africans of unknown descent since the day the first one set foot here, through every single piece of legislation and war in every century upon until the 20th Century.

So bragging about the party of Lincoln are neither noteworthy or significant. People think they are good, when they are not.

Danielle
“They do the same thing for white blue collar votes, not only that, they go far to show that they care about them and thier values and pander like crazy-why is it exerting too much energy to do the same for blacks?? If they gave half of the energy they gave to blue collar whites to court the black vote, they could make inroads.”

Excellent point. What’s the most surpising and disappointing is when black conservatives act in like manner. Many black conservatives get upset when they’re labeled by other blacks as “sell outs” or uncle toms”, but many earn those labels. I have disagreements with fellow blacks all the time regarding politics, but never hear those criticisms. It’s how you present yourselves and your arguments. People of all colors can tell when you are coming from the heart, or if you’re just judging them.

THEBIGDODDY
“Amongst those, many of them know the obscene and godless spirit behind many of the “bootstrap”, “personal responsibility”, “small government”, “Nanny State”, “moonbat” and “states rights” sentiments, and try not lose ALL good sense about whom their dealing with.”

That’s why they will listen to a Bill Cosby when he says what he says, but those same ideas fall on deaf ears when they come out of the mouth of say, Sean Hannity.

As a white male, I do not care about blacks specifically. (hold on) I care about my fellow Americans first and foremost. I identify with people who share my morals and ethics regardless of race. When a particular race overwhelmingly votes for a party, regardless of name, while ignoring the history of the party it seems to indicate a decision based on reputation rather than reason. That sounds like prejudice to me.

#14 Bev:

I wrote this in #7: “When Uncle Sam is Uncle Sugar and you have come to rely on his handouts, you sure don’t want to hear about giving up the benefits. That’s not a “Black Thing” either. ”

I then listed social security, Medicare, and the Prescription drug plan. Bev, these are entitlement programs and far many more white people are the beneficiaries than blacks.

Somehow, my words got translated into an attack implying that all blacks are on welfare. Please, reread #7. I clearly made no such statement or innuendo.

However, the Democrats have capitalized on spreading the fear that the welfare support system is going to be yanked away if Republicans get in office. I am on social security and I receive Medicare. Both plans are Ponzi schemes and they will not be there for people 30 years or so down the road. Black or white.

The Democrats refuse to face the realities of these badly financed systems. They have even managed to work illegal aliens into receiving benefits.

I am sorry for the recent loss of your father. Both he and your aging mother were part of the Uncle Sugar programs of social security and Medicare. Your mother currently gets her meds through the Prescription drug program.

Social security is a misleading name in every respect. At best, a person might get about $1500 a month out of the system. They call it a trust fund, too. Social security payments are swept into the general budget and spent on everything. Your social security payments are a stack of IOU’s and you will be paid from the yearly taxpayers (including yourself) when you start drawing on the system.

Bev, please reread what I wrote in #7. I made much of how Democrats use the poor. That is not code for “black people.” The poor in this country are white, Native American, black, Hispanic, and more. Most of the poor are white.

I am all in favor of providing an honest safety net for our society. But that means being honest. It is not principled to promise the moon and then pass the bill that can’t be paid on to future generations.

“The entire nation of the United States was reprobate, lawless, and corrupt for it’s treatment of those Africans of unknown descent since the day the first one set foot here, through every single piece of legislation and war in every century upon until the 20th Century.”
Comment by THEBIGDODDY — 07.16.08 @ 3:56 pm

What a load. I guess the Civil War was all for naught in your book.

As to all the other posters denigrating the Repubs because of old slights, where are your comparisons to the Dems and people like Byrd?
Just ignore the real clansman and concentrate on the bogey man with the R next to his name.

When racist white southerners migrated into the Republican party after the election of 1968, the Republicans welcomed their votes. You think blacks didn’t notice that?

It was a political calculation that said that the electoral votes of the southern states were more valuable than black votes in the urban centers, which were owned by the Democratic machines anyway.

This political calculation has kept the Republicans in control of the presidency for most of the last 40 years. And it might work for another four years.

Meanwhile, blacks believe, not without reason, that the federal government is their most likely ally in dealing with what remains of white racism. And the Republicans posture as wanting to reduce the power of the federal government. You think blacks don’t notice that?

Republicans have forfeited any claim to the allegiance of black Americans.

Heck, in the last several years, they have forfeited the clain to the allegiance of conservative voters, too.

No conservative, black or white, should vote Republican. It’s just that black conservatives have a couple of extra reasons for thinking that way.

It’s unfortunate, because in the long run, conservatism is better for everyone, black or white. But then, Republicans really aren’t conservative anymore, either.

To Heliotrop,

I have reread your post and understand. Thank you. I am forever in the learning process. I have grown to understand and continue to learn how the Democrats have messed things up.

What happened to judging a man by his character? Obama is black. So WHAT! If one looks beyond the color of his skin and those stadium event rah rah vague speeches of his, reality reveals he’s an opportunistic politician like the rest of his cohorts. God damn America indeed.

As the bumper sticker says, aw f*ck it, Mccain 08.

TO: La Shawn, et al.
RE: Wrong Focus

I don’t see this as a black and/or white [or whatever colour] issue.

I see it as something of a much broader and much more troubling nature….a state of mind, if you will. Or even if you won’t.

I’m a Republican living in a predominately Democrat community. And I hear the utter and unequivocal prejudice all the time.

Case in point, the distaff and I are out collecting signatures on a totally non-partisan issue relating to the crushing of dissent by the non-partisan elected City Council; the return of a Public Forum to televised City Council meetings. [Note: Last September, the City Council decided not to allow televised criticism of them in their chambers during regular sessions; a public forum that had been going on for YEARS. This petition is to make such televised public forums a city ordinance so that the City Council CANNOT squelch them.]

So, we’re collecting signatures and people say, “This isn’t one of those REPUBLICAN things, is it?”

This sort of knee-jerk prejudice is the same sort of mentality that drives racism, i.e., ‘Oh. You’re one of THOSE people.’

I also encountered it during my time in the active duty military; ‘Sorry. We don’t serve your sort here’, while trying to make a $100 purchase and showing my ID card as proof of identity to go with a personal (local bank) check.

People, of all ’stripes’ haven’t changed much. And it seems to me that the Democrats harbor more prejudicial-minded people than the other parties.

These reports, as the intro to this thread, only reinforce my observations.

What’s the solution? Better education. Oh. But wait! Don’t the Democrats and their prejudicial mentality dominate that venue?

Hmmmm….could there be a connection?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic. - Robert A. Heinlein]

Mark Davis (filling in for Rush this friday, btw)tells a story of a receptionist at the station who is die herd Dem and an older black lady. Working for conservative radio, she was by the Dem’s past, or her own views on many thing antithetical to the Dem philosophy. At the very start of things, she was torn between Obama and Hillary, so the Davis show Staff convinced her to take an online test. It had all the candidates from Fred, to Ron Paul and Gravel to Obama. She answered the long survey and the test determined that her best match as a candidate was. . . Mitt Romney. “Her head nearly exploded” as Mark would say.

I believe the barrier to the GOP’s getting more of the black vote is about “language”.

Democrats address the black community as victims. They occasionally refer to individual responsibility, but for the most part they speak of blacks as a bloc…victims of racism and a system stacked against them.

Without getting into all the weeds of our politics, conservatives will never talk like that. We believe in individual responsibility. We despise grouping citizens into “racial categories”, as if every person in that category were the same. We do not deny there are racists…we deny the claim that institutional racism is still pervasive in America. In summary: We believe any individual can make it in this country if they work hard, live responsibly, and play by the rules. Therefore, Republicans will never address the entire black community as victims…it would contradict everything we believe about individuals.

Sadly, the community apparently prizes victimhood far above all the conservative principles they share with Republicans. Dems speak that language so eloquently. That’s the siren song that keeps blacks tied to the party. It doesn’t matter what Dems DO. It only matters that they keep singing that siren song that makes blacks think Dems understand them.

Sadly, this has meant that Dems get held to a standard no higher than “talk”. And as long as talk is all blacks need from Dems, nothing will change.

Carter: “…but why do they have to go all the way back to before the 60’s to show the last time they did something for us? ”

Thanks for eloquently making La Shawns’s point.

And by the way, the Democrats have been doing something to you alright. You just don’t understand how damaging it is.

NOW we’re cooking. These are great comments!

“and encourage them to blame third parties for their troubles.”

Echo. In that, they are no different than the Saudi’s and their madrassas. Look to Obama’s own religion: Black Liberation Theology craves “the love of a God that participates in the destruction of the White enemy” (Cone). Obama spent 20 years whorshipping [sic] at that racist altar. No way he deserves to lead America.

#10 THEBIGDODDY:

You say: “Many (most) non-whites don’t vote Republican and embrace Conservative ideals because of the faces of the people who espouse those ideals.”

Are you saying that the faces of the people who espouse those ideals are white and (most) non-whites are …… racists? That is two questions.

If the answer to each question is “yes”, how does the “oreo” break through the barrier? (By “oreo” I mean a black, conservative Republican who is not “acting black.”)

You see it’s the little things that we gloss over that tend to be very important.

Chuck in #41 writes:

“I see it as something of a much broader and much more troubling nature….a state of mind, if you will. Or even if you won’t.”

TBD:

Exactly. State of mind.

Proverbs 23:7 says ‘as a man THINKS, so is he’

Romans 12:2 mentions being “transformed by the re-newing of your MIND”

Phillipians 2:5 says to let the mind of the Messiah be IN you

2 Timothy 1:7 says we were not [initially] given a spirit fear, but of power, love, and a sound MIND.

Jeanne B writes:

“Democrats address the black community as victims. They occasionally refer to individual responsibility, but for the most part they speak of blacks as a bloc…victims of racism and a system stacked against them.”

TBD:
The FACT is that Democrats have a funky motive for the use of the word “victim” as Republicans do. They ALL using in a foul way, so in that vein there is parity.

The system is made up of individual people, and it’s the PEOPLE who THINK and this ARE (see my response to Chuck Pelto) which causes problems.

JeanneB:

“Without getting into all the weeds of our politics, conservatives will never talk like that.”

TBD:

I disagree. The issue at hand, and I’ve been discussing this with conservatives/liberals/libertarians/independents of all stripes is that there is this concern that non-whites want the government to TAKE away something from whites and give it to them, because they don’t deserve anything. So there is some “potential” victimization in this process, if true.

JeanneB:

“We believe in individual responsibility. We despise grouping citizens into “racial categories”, as if every person in that category were the same. We do not deny there are racists…we deny the claim that institutional racism is still pervasive in America. In summary: We believe any individual can make it in this country if they work hard, live responsibly, and play by the rules. Therefore, Republicans will never address the entire black community as victims…it would contradict everything we believe about individuals.”

Cognitive Dissonance here. Republicans are just as dirty, scandalous, carnal, and funky as heathen liberals, and the “Christians” are the worst. I was sent on an assignment to participate on message boards and blogs over a few years and cataloged several gigabytes of data that refutes exactly what you write here. It was a non-partisan matter that my Rabbi wanted to look at. When it comes to politics and religion, every race, partisan group, and class of people seem to be categorically at their WORST. And this was also validated in my years in teaching, community work, and consulting in various religious denominations. Talk about politics and people are unequivocally carnal and ugly.

So Dems AND Repubs who think they are all that need to get real. You are NOT.

JeanneB:

“Sadly, the community apparently prizes victimhood far above all the conservative principles they share with Republicans.”

TBD:

Again this is not true, especially for the ones I know. Can’t you read? They just don’t like how you REGARD your neighbors. Africans of unknown descent are indeed participants of some of the most grievous acts of witchcraft outlined in the Bible and so many of the things they have done that have grieved the Holy Spirit have nothing to do with whites. They are just here with people whom they have come to know and observe to simply be indifferent to them for ONE reason, and ONE reason only, and this has driven every bit of degradation and misrepresentation in economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war. It’s not about a handout, it’s about a human NATURE thing.

JeanneB:

“Dems speak that language so eloquently. That’s the siren song that keeps blacks tied to the party. It doesn’t matter what Dems DO. It only matters that they keep singing that siren song that makes blacks think Dems understand them.
Sadly, this has meant that Dems get held to a standard no higher than “talk”. And as long as talk is all blacks need from Dems, nothing will change.”

TBD:

I agree that what you write is very much more right than wrong.

THEBIGDODDY
“Amongst those, many of them know the obscene and godless spirit behind many of the “bootstrap”, “personal responsibility”, “small government”, “Nanny State”, “moonbat” and “states rights” sentiments, and try not lose ALL good sense about whom their dealing with.”

I’m white. My parents were born in the 1920’s in rural East Texas. I was born in 1961 and raised in the same area. My home town schools were segregated when I was about 3 years old. I have been exposed to real-life, spittle-spewing racists in my time.

I voted for Carter in 1980, as that was my first time to vote and I was raised as a yellow-dog Democrat. Once I started paying a little attention and thinking for myself, I stopped voting Democrat. I also stopped associating with racists.

In the last 20-odd years that I’ve been politically engaged, I’d categorize myself as a “conservative libertarian” — socially conservative, with a large distrust of centralized government. I’ve spent not a little time reading conservative and libertarian books, columns, web sites, etc. over the years.

I remember being completely gobsmacked the first time a “liberal” Democrat informed me that “personal responsibility”, “small government”, “Nanny State”, “states rights”, etc. were actually racist code-words. How had I missed that through all the years? I started being on the lookout for indications that this was actually the case for some people. It’s been about ten years now, and I still haven’t seen anything to support this notion other than the Democrats’ say-so. Personally, I take offense at the suggestion.

Consider this: If a collectivist, big-government political party wanted to discourage individualism and self-sufficiency among a race of voters, how better to do this than propagate the slander that the very language of individualism and self-sufficiency are actually secret code words for racist hate? I’m just saying…

Finally, those spittle-spewing racists I’ve known? Life-long Democrats, every one. And not one ever talked about “states rights”.

T. Mott says:

“Consider this: If a collectivist, big-government political party wanted to discourage individualism and self-sufficiency among a race of voters, how better to do this than propagate the slander that the very language of individualism and self-sufficiency are actually secret code words for racist hate? I’m just saying…”

Non-whites who believe in the language and individualism and self-sufficiency carefully observe the faces of those who loudly advocate those principles, the context of that declaration, as well as the words and deeds of the people who use that language and make their summation.

For example, perhaps you should count the number of times a poster alleged that non-whites vote democrat because they cling strongly to “victimization” and want a “handout”.

If YOU believe that summation to be flawed, then so be it. You indeed should defend your own honor, but if you stick your neck out for those whom you feel are like minded, then you will likely be named amongst them.

Words are very powerful tools. The words that men should use with one another are the very ones that they avoid, as it’s not expedient (for whatever reason) to use alternate words.

People frequently accuse non-whites of “looking for racism where it doesn’t exist”. I can see why they say that. It’s because they don’t know what words to use to replace that sentiment. This, from my service to ALL people in the flock, is the problem. People don’t know how, or simply choose NOT, to confess goodwill towards their neighbor. I PERSONALLY think they choose NOT too because depending on which master they serve, it can be too costly.

I have always maintained that it is one of the clearest signs of injustice in the world of politics that the Republican Party is consistently stigmatized in the popular culture as being stridently anti-Civil Rights and the Democrats are lauded as the premier pro-Civil Rights party. I am well aware that the GOP has a far from spotless record on race, but it is relatively pristine compared to just how much more spotted the Democrats’ record is.

The Democrats today claim that the Republican Party turned against Civil Rights in the mid-1960s, and/or used subtle appeals to latent Southern racism to pick up the racist white vote in the South. This theory, that the GOP appealed to racism to reach their current position of dominance in the South, is what has since been termed the Republican “Southern Strategy.”
Is this story true? I personally don’t think so.
Read on . . .

In fact, I still find it amazing that despite the fact that practically every famous racist that had walked the sphere of American politics in the past 100 years had worn a ‘D’ behind his name, Republicans are considered the “racist party.” Ben ‘Pitchfork’ Tillman, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Bilbo, Richard Russell, John Sparkman, Orville Faubus, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Ross Barnett, George Mahony, etc. all hardcore racists, all high profile (Senators and Governors, one a President), all Democrats. Bull Connor himself was a registered Democrat up until he died. Much like the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA, the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party in the South for decades, and had enough clout that it even sent delegates to National Conventions. And it was not just in the South, the unions and city machines often played the same role for the Democrats in the North, manning the polls to prevent black people from voting.

It is hard not to be overcome with admiration at how the Democrats have managed to transfer all the bad karma they have richly earned on race to the GOP. They would never have succeeded without the assistance of their friends in the Press, but the GOPs own active stupidity and blindness (the GOP is not called the Stupid Party for nothing) was probably just as essential. Of course, one could justifiably say that all that is just ancient history. The real story is what the parties have done since the 1960s, when the GOP lost, permanently, whatever competitiveness it still retained in the black community. Did the Republican Party turn against Civil Rights even as the Democrat Party embraced it wholesale?

The Democrats and their friends in the Fourth Estate and academia all say yes. This is offered as the primary reason why the South went from being solidly Democrat to solidly Republican; the “Southern Strategy.”

But on closer examination, there are way too many ahistorical gaps in the logic upholding this so-called particular theory. First of all, the first Civil Rights Bills passed since Reconstruction in 1957 and 1960 were sent to Congress by the Eisenhower Administration and steered though to passage (though much weakened by Democrat Amendments) by Senate Republican Leader William Knowland of California. In the congressional battles for Civil Rights in the 1960s, the GOP, in both the House and Senate, consistently voted for Civil Rights in far greater percentages than the Democrats. In fact, the Senator at the forefront of writing the Senate versions of the Civil Rights Acts and breaking the 1964 filibuster was none other than the Senate Republican Leader, Everett Dirksen of Illinois. He and his fellow Republicans were far more instrumental in the passage of the Acts, so much so that the NAACP gave him the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award (though the rabidly anti-Republican NAACP is very likely to posthumously withdraw it anyday now).

So, it cannot be denied, the GOP acquitted itself well during the Civil Rights Acts’ fights for survival in congress and were key players in getting them passed. In fact, of the twenty Senators who filibustered the key Civil Rights Act in 1964, only one was a Republican, John Tower of Texas. The rest of them, Richard Russell, Allen Ellender, Jim Eastland, Al Gore Snr., Robert Byrd, Herman Talmadge, J. William Fulbright, etc. were all Democrats.

But among the other things the happened in the 1960s to sour the black community on the GOP is its Presidential nomination of Barry Goldwater, who had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But, anyone who has any familiarity with Goldwater’s record knows that he had always been an opponent of segregation; before he entered politics he desegregated his department store, and he desegregated the Arizona National Guard when he served as its Chief of Staff a full two years before Harry S Truman ordered he desegregation of the Armed Forces. He was also a strong supporter of the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights bills. Interestingly, he was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP and remained a member till his death. So why did he oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964? He thought it was unconstitutional (he is the founding father of modern American Conservatism in Government, after all), overextended the role of the Federal Government and could possibly lead to racial preferences and quotas (he got that part right). He got 8% of the black vote in the 1964 election.

But Goldwater is not as often mentioned as the supposed “Southern Strategy” supposedly instituted by the Nixon campaign in 1968 and has supposedly since then been utilized by the GOP to win the South away from the Democrats. According to the narrative offered by the Democrats/Press, this “Southern Strategy” led the Dixiecrats to move en masse out of the Democrat Party and into the Republican Party, thus firmly delivering the South into Republican hands and the black community to the Democrats. This “Southern Strategy” was allegedly instrumental in Nixon’s victory over Hubert Humphrey.

No doubt there was some sort of “Southern Strategy” to appeal to Southerners, but was it based on race? Or other cultural issues?

The Democrats say it was based on race but there are far too many ahistorical holes in this story; how much of it is reality and how much of it is myth? For one, when Democratic news outlets like the New York Times write about the 1968 campaign and attribute Nixon’s victory to the “Southern Strategy” they invariably fail to mention that there were two Democrats running in 1968, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace. It is my belief from looking at the history that this so-called “Southern Strategy“, even if implemented the way the Democrats say it was, was neither long-lasting nor in any way effective. Taking the following Southern states into account and judging the amount (and percentage) of votes Nixon got against Kennedy in 1960 and the votes he got against Humphrey in 1968;

ALABAMA
 1960
   John F Kennedy 324,050 [56.8%]
   Richard Nixon 237,981 [41.7%]
 1968
   Richard Nixon 146,923 [14.0%]
   Hubert Humphrey 196,579 [18.7%]

   George Wallace 691,425 [65.9%]
ARKANSAS
 1960
   John F Kennedy 215,049 [50.2%]
   Richard Nixon 184,508 [43.1%]
 1968
   Richard Nixon 190,759 [30.8%]

   Hubert Humphrey 188,228 [30.4%]
   George Wallace 240,982 [38.9%]
GEORGIA
 1960
   John F Kennedy 458,638 [62.5%]
   Richard Nixon 274,472 [37.4%]
 1968

   Richard Nixon 380,111 [30.4%]
   Hubert Humphrey 334,440 [26.7%]
   George Wallace 535,550 [42.8%]
LOUISIANA
 1960
   John F Kennedy 407,339 [50.4%]
   Richard Nixon 230,980 [28.6%]

 1968
   Richard Nixon 257,535 [23.5%]
   Hubert Humphrey 309,615 [28.2%]
   George Wallace 530,300 [48.3%]
MISSISSIPPI
 1960
   John F Kennedy 108,362 [36.3%]

   Richard Nixon 73,561 [24.7%]
 1968
   Richard Nixon 88,516 [13.5%]
   Hubert Humphrey 50,644 [23.0%]
   George Wallace 415,349 [63.5%]
NORTH CAROLINA
 1960

   John F Kennedy 713,136 [52.1%]
   Richard Nixon 655,420 [47.9%]
 1968
   Richard Nixon 627,192 [39.5%]
   Hubert Humphrey 464,113 [29.2%]
   George Wallace 496,188 [31.3%]

SOUTH CAROLINA
 1960
   John F Kennedy 198,129 [51.2%]
   Richard Nixon 188,558 [48.8%]
 1968
   Richard Nixon 254,062 [38.1%]
   Hubert Humphrey 197,486 [29.6%]

   George Wallace 215,430 [32.3%]
TENNESSEE
 1960
   John F Kennedy 481,453 [45.8%]
   Richard Nixon 556,577 [52.9%]
 1968
   Richard Nixon 472,592 [37.8%]

   Hubert Humphrey 351,233 [28.1%]
   George Wallace 424,792 [34.0%]
WEST VIRGINIA
 1960
   John F Kennedy 441,786 [52.7%]
   Richard Nixon 395,995 [47.3%]
 1968

   Richard Nixon 307,555 [40.8%]
   Hubert Humphrey 374,091 [49.6%]
   George Wallace 72,560 [9.6%]
Note that in 1968, there was nowhere where Nixon’s numbers went up consistently, i.e. he consistently lost support in the percentage of votes he received from 1960, and in many cases even lost votes in terms of raw numbers. In other words, Nixon’s “<i?Southern Strategy” yielded him absolutely nothing in terms of electoral success; raw numbers or percentages. Yet, strangely, Nixon’s victory is always attributed to appeals to racial hatreds – despite his campaign’s explicit statement in 1966 that it would leave it to the;

… party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.

I highlight the name Mahoney in order to make another point. Nixon picked Spiro Agnew in 1968 to be his running mate. This is the same Spiro Theodore Agnew who ran for Governor of Maryland in 1966 (just two years earlier) on a platform of extending civil rights to black Marylanders while his Democratic opponent George Mahoney, ran on an explicitly segregationist platform.
In other words, [1] Nixon denounced segregation throughout his 1968 campaign, [2] he was known for pushing civil rights legislation in the 1950s as Vice President, [3] he picks a famously anti-segregationist running mate. But yet we are told that he won in 1968 because he appealed to racism …

Furthermore, considering what Nixon did while in office; raised the Civil Rights Enforcement Budget 800%; made numerous appointments of African Americans to high federal offices; virtually invented Affirmative Action (the Philadelphia Plan by Arthur Fletcher); oversaw the aggressive desegregation of Southern schools; the people who voted for Nixon on account of racism must have felt extremely stupid and misled. Here’s another fact, Nixon won 18% of the black vote in 1968 and 25% of the black vote in 1972 – a feat no Republican has replicated since.

The common assertion made by the Democrats is that the Dixiecrats moved en masse into the GOP in protest against the Democrats’ supposed wholesale rejection of racism (while Talmadge, Stennis, Russell, etc still proudly wore Ds and leadership positions in the Senate … and the lone black man in the Senate, Edward Brooke, wore an R) is patently nonsensical. Hardly any Dixiecrats crossed the aisle. The often repeated assertion that the Dixiecrats became Republicans is one of the most ahistorical myths in the history of American politics. In fact, with the sole exception Strom Thurmond, no Dixiecrat left the Democrats for the GOP in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Acts, and his leaving had virtually nothing to do with race. In fact, it seemed as if he remained in the Democrat Party only because of its stand against civil rights, because he switched after the GOP overwhelmingly voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and continued to vote just as overwhelming for Civil Rights bills in 1965 and 1968. Once Jim Crow met its end, Thurmond simply made an honest man of himself and moved to the party whose ideology lay closer to his long held antipathy to an intrusive and activist federal government.

Either way, every Southern state was controlled by the Dixiecrats in 1960s, 1970s and some even up to this day. If a massive switch of partisan allegiance took place with the Dixiecrats leaving the Democrats to become Republicans in the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement, then the historical record would show huge amounts of Democrat politicians switching parties in Southern states. We should see the Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, etc. state legislatures swing from Democrat to Republican majorities. But if one should check the records of every Southern state, that’s clearly not the case – it didn’t happen. Hardly any such partisan switches took place. In fact, legislatures of many Southern states like Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana have never known majority control by the Republican Party, the current GOP Governor of Georgia is its first in near a century, the current junior Senator from Louisiana is the very first Republican Senator produced by the state, etc. So the simple fact remains that 99.9% of Dixiecrats stayed in the Democrat Party. They’re dying off. And, the South, moved Right even as the Democrats moved Left (witness the landmark nomination of McGovern in 1972 and the subsequent takeover by the far Left of the Democrat Party).
In other words, the South did not move to the GOP column throughout the 1960s, 1970s and really only started going Republican in the 1980s, and I’m including the Presidential level. That would be twenty years later.
Let’s look through it, shall we?:

1968 – Two Democrats running, one on an explicitly segregationist platform. Nixon actually lost votes in many Southern states compared to what he got in 1960 against John F. Kennedy.
     And to make matters even more confusing, Nixon picked Spiro Agnew to be his running mate. In case you didn’t know, Agnew ran for Governor of Maryland on a platform of extending civil rights to black Marylanders while his Democratic opponent George Mahony, ran on an explicitly segregationist platform.
     Furthermore, Nixon’s campaign explicitly denounced segregation many times, not to mention the fact that Nixon was known for pushing civil rights legislation in the 1950s as Vice President.
      So let’s see how this works. Nixon denounces segregation, he picks a famously anti-segregationist running mate, he doesn’t do any better in Southern States than he did in 1960. But yet he won in 1968 because he appealed to racism? How does that work?
1972 – Nixon won 49 of 50 states. Did he use the “Southern Strategy” to win New York, Massachusetts and Maine?
1976 – Carter wins. He wins a significant number of Southern states. He must have appealed to racism too, right?
1980 – Reagan wins. He wins most of the South, except Georgia. And most of the North. He won 44 states after all. But of course the Democrats still stand by the accusation that he won the South strictly based on racist appeals.
1984 – Reagan won 49 states. Only lost Minnesota. Democrats of course believe his win could also be attributed to the so-called “Southern Strategy.”
Either way, once it is pointed out that Nixon’s election in 1968 could not have had anything to do with a supposed “Southern Strategy,” the next most common assertion is that Nixon and every Republican thenceforth have used “racial code words.” Such code words include “law and order“, “crime“, “welfare queen“**, “liberal“, “tax hiker“, “quota“, “cut taxes“, “federalism“. In the vast majority of these cases, most are attempts by the Democrats and their friends in the Press to declare areas in which they are politically weak off-limits to debate. The two most commonly cited examples of Republicans using “code words” or “code actions” are Reagan supposedly endorsing “states rights” in Philadelphia Mississippi, and the elder Bushs’ use of Willie Horton against Dukakis in 1988.

In the case of the phrase “States’ Rights,” there is a strong case to be made that consistent and extensive use of the phrase, especially in the South, is an attempt to stir up racial tensions, though how successful this particular tactic would be today is far different from the 1960s. But saying something positive about “States’ Rights” in a campaign speech, even in the South, does not a racist make. The concept of “States’ Rights“, i.e. Federalism, is a key element of small government Conservatism. Unfortunately, in defense of racism, the Dixiecrats poisoned the phrase and almost succeeded in poisoning the very idea of Federalism in the first place. Either way, I have long heard the story of how Reagan began his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, MS (where three civil rights activists were murdered by Kluckers in 1964) and proclaimed his support for “States’ Rights” in his speech. According to the Democrats/Press, the choice of venue and words is conclusive evidence that Reagan was appealing to the racist vote as, the story goes, there could have been no other reason for Reagan to begin a campaign in Mississippi.

Of course, the story is a little bit lacking in facts and context. Reagan was in Philadelphia MS, to take advantage of the Neshoba County Fair, an annual political event in Mississippi, and a huge deal in the state’s politics. A major part of it are speeches by politicians. We are told that Reagan then unambiguously endorsed “States Rights,” in its racial context when he said; “I believe in States’ Rights …“. But the full quote is;

What we have to do is bring back the recognition that the people of this country can solve its problems. I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in state’s rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.

This was the first and last time Reagan uttered the words “state rights” in the speech, which is far from an outright “endorsement” or even “positive mention” of “states’ rights” (i.e. segregation). I personally do not believe that the average member of his Mississipi audience, even in 1980, immediately thought that within his explication of a basic principle of Conservatism (as underlined above), he had buried a promise to re-institute Jim Crow. Yet, according to the Press, upon hearing the phrase “States Rights“, average Southern whites, much like Pavlov’s dogs, suuposedly fell hypnotized, their latent inner Nazis surfacing and making them reflexively pull the GOP lever, months later on election day. A commonly held conceit among limousine liberals, particular those that inhabit the halls of journalism is that white Southerners are primarily or even only motivated by race and racism, therefore anyone who wins the Southern white vote must have appealed to racism.

Of course, this doesn’t apply to Democrats. When a Democrat wins the majority of the vote in a Southern state, like Carter, it’s because of his policies, sex appeal, pragmatism, etc. but when a Republican does, it’s because he used “code words” like “law and order” to appeal to the Southern inner-Nazi.
The legendary Willie Horton ad is another supposed sign that Republicans are racists, but in actuality is more of a sign of what a biased Press can do. Willie Horton was a convicted first degree murderer who had been let out of prison unsupervised under the aegis of the Massachusetts Furlough Program, of which Michael Dukakis, a limousine Leftist of the first order was a passionate supporter. So much so that he actually vetoed a bill banning the granting of such furloughs to first degree murderers. When Horton was released for a weekend, he never came back and instead went over to Maryland, where he tortured a couple, cutting the man nearly two dozen times and savagely raping the woman.

The Democrats realized that the Bush campaign had found Dukakis’ major achilles heel (he was notoriously soft on crime) and swiftly attempted to shut the Bush campaign and its supporters up. The Democrat charged that by revealing through a mug shot that Horton was black, the National Security PAC which produced the ad (”Weekend Passes”) in support of, but independent of the Bush campaign, had no other motive but appealing to racism. The thought apparently never occured to any member of the Press that the ad would have run even if Horton (the most notorious of furloughed re-offenders) had been white because the issue, as the vast majority of Americans recognized it, was one of crime, not race. But the Democrats and their allies in the Press strove mightily to switch the subject from being one of crime to one of race. Even though the ad “Revolving Doors” officially produced by the Bush campaign, on the same theme, featured 19 nine furloughed murderers, rapists, etc., sixteen white, two black and one Latino, Dan Rather and friends have managed to get it remembered more for the racial controversy they and their friends at the DNC injected into issue.

Like I mentioned before, without the Press, the Democrats would nowhere near as strong in the black community as they are now. Thurmond’s fellow Senator from South Carolina for over three decades, Fritz Hollings, was the Governor who first flew the Confederate flag over the South Carolina Capitol to show his support for segregation. This was/is hardly ever mentioned in the Press, even in articles and stories about him that devote space to detail his fellow Senator’s less than illustrious past on race. No newspaper article ever mentioned the late Strom Thurmond without duly informing its readers about Thurmond’s past as a segregationist Dixiecrat. Yet, despite a segregationist past every bit as repugnant as Thurmond’s, despite the fact that they both were numbered among the Senators who filibustered the Civil Rights Acts, despite his once being a Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan, Robert Byrd has no fear of his racist past appearing in any newspaper. Both Byrd and Thurmond long ago apologized, and there is nothing to suggest one was any less sincere than the other. Thurmond, interestingly, was the very first Southern Senator to hire a black legislative aide in Congress.

The only possible explanation for the difference in treatment with regard to Byrd and Thurmond on race is that Byrd remained a Democrat while Thurmond had the temerity to switch parties. Thurmond’s membership in the GOP is treated as a black mark against the party while Robert Byrd, who served twelve years (a record) as the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, is often cited as a credit to the Democrats. In fact, according to many members of Washington Press Corps, he’s the “Conscience of the Senate.”

When Douglas Wilder won the nomination for Governor in 1989, many Press outlets made it a point to inform the nation that Wilder was the first black man to recieve a major party nomination for Governor since Reconstruction. Which proves the oft-repeated point that the Press can be remarkably color-blind when it comes to minority Republicans … because the Michigan GOP had nominated a black man for Governor, William Lucas, just three years earlier, in 1986, to run against Jim Blanchard. Reagan, (the so-called racist) headlined fundraisers for the man. But, outside of Michigan, no-one knew that the man running for Governor was an African American. Contrast that to the hagiographies that the Press ran nationwide about Wilder (I confess that I’m glad Wilder won, by the way).

In the end, I think the GOP routinely and unfairly gets the short end of the stick regarding its reputation and history on racial issues. And, the sad part of it is that this has become so ingrained into what is common knowledge in America that there are college students (and quite a few people here) who would bet their trust funds that Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat and the Republicans were the party of the South during the Civil War.

“I honestly don’t believe that all those racist voting Democrats just “died-off” within an eight year period.”

It seems to be a recurring theme, that all racists deserted the Democratic party and became Republicans. Consider that they were not expelled by the Democrats. They would still be there today, if left to the Democrats. Also consider that there are other political issues than race attracting people to the Republican party. Hard for some to believe, but yes it is true. While Republicans may differ on opinions regarding matters of race, they do tend to agree more on a large number of other issues. For that matter, the same is true of Democrats as witness the Democratic primary, just concluding. Republicans do tend to oppose affirmative action, but they favor programs, such as school-choice, to promote the quality of education at the elementary and secondary level, reducing the need for affirmative action at the college level. Democrats see such programs as a threat to their control over such schools and turn to affirmative action to compensate for their poor performance in preparing inner-city blacks for higher education. Unfortunately, programs, such as affirmative action are seen as a positive by blacks, with never a thought as to why they will always be needed.

willis … another thing you should note with p. anthony allen’s comment is that he’s citing Nixon’s winning of a 100% of Southern States in 1972 as evidence. What he’s forgetting is that Nixon won 49 states, which means he won both North and South.

Perhaps race was not the reason AL, MS, TX, etc. voted Nixon along with NY, ME, CT, RI in 1972?

Did you see the e-mail I sent you? Similar to this topic.

Martin Knight,

I noticed that you and the Southern Fried Skeptic had some dialog over your article from Redstate.com

The SFS wrote:

“First of all, we have to start at the civil war and the concept of the “Yellow Dog” Democrat in the South. After Lincoln, a Republican, signed the emancipation proclamation, many racist whites in the South became what was known as a “Yellow Dog” Democrat. They hated Lincoln so much they would vote for a yellow dog if it was a Democrat against any Republican challenger. As the two parties, Democrats and Republicans, began to change on issues over time, the Southern Democrats found themselves often at odds with their Northern companions. In 1948, Strom Thurmond actually split from the main body of Democrats and introduced the State’s Rights Democrats, commonly called the Dixiecrats. The platform of the Dixiecrats was opposition to desegregation, specifically they were outraged at the desegregation of the military which was done at the behest of Truman, a “true” Democrat. State’s Rights Democrats supported state’s rights obviously, but the motivation for this support was obvious in the issues supported. They wanted a state to have the right to segregate and wanted states to have the right to enact Jim Crow laws.

By 1964, Strom Thumond-who previously ran for President as a segregationalist- had switched to the party that more accurately reflected his values, the Republican party. The “states rights” terminology had become symbolic for the racist attitudes in the South that led to the creation of the Dixiecrats which were properly called, States Rights Democrats. The trend of Republicans seizing upon the radical racist elements of the south’s discontent with the original Democrats who were now taking a pro civil rights position for African Americans continued. Often using the term “states rights” as a way to imply, accurately or not, that the candidate sympathized with supporters of segregation and racist policies, Republican candidates(including Nixon and later Reagan) encouraged a shift in Southern voters and the former “Yellow Dog” Democrats, in the passage of time since Lincoln, gave up their voting traditions and began voting for Republicans. Evidences of that reality still exist. Zell Miller of my home state of Georgia, who ran as a segregationist in the 1960’s still considers himself a Democrat. Yet, we see that he aligns himself in every way, including fiery speeches at national conventions, with the Republican party.

So it seems obvious to me that pointing out what letter was behind the name and whether or not the candidate had racist tendencies is at best poor methodology in understanding the political landscape surrounding the development of the Southern Strategy. Especially since there were two distinct sets of Democrats, even though they all had a “D” behind their name. Any success that Democratic candidates who supported civil rights had in the South is not evidence that racism was not a motivating factor in the south, but is most likely a testament to lingering effects of the “yellow dog” Democrat phenomenon. The NY Times article you mentioned should have been a clue to your mistake, yet you somehow tried to frame it as support for your argument. The NY Times failure to mention Wallace was not the conspiracy of a liberal newspaper to hide the fact that a racist Democrat was running in 1968 from posterity. It was because Wallace had no chance of winning, and Humphrey was the nominee of the official Democratic party. What advantage would the NYT have in not reporting that information when it was common knowledge at the time?”

So do you think that Republicans are really good people who love their neighbors just as much, if not more, than Democrats.

Though lengthy, your post was quite informative. I need to find the original and print it out.

It’s cool to be an apologist for your party.

My point has been that none of them (the parties or the individuals therein) has a patent on charity towards non-whites, and are not worth apologizing for, in my opinion.

One example of the fallout from the GOP’s failure to confront Democrats’ race-baiting was in the 2006 elections when the previously-unknown word “macaca” became an unforgivable racial smear. There was something weird – not to mention creepy – about MSM journalists and Democrat Party spinmeisters thumbing through foreign language dictionaries looking for “proof” of Senator Allen’s alleged racism.

It’s clear how most people would have reacted – by say that Webb’s “macaca” tactic was garbage. But the Republicans’ response was to act guilty. Even when the victim of a slimy campaign trick, the GOP seems to have some bizarre need to take the blame anyway.

The Kiswahili word for “buttock” is “tako” (pronounced “taco”). Given the X-rated history of William Jefferson Clinton’s pants-down Presidency – and the mindless defense put up by Democrats and the MSM – can we assume that any Democrat who says the word “taco” is committing an act of sexual harassment? I just want to know if the “macaca standard” can be applied to Democrats as well as Republicans.

THEBIGDODDY

I wasn’t particularly impressed by SFS’s argument (if you’re inclined to call it that) the first time I read it.

1.5 years later, and I’m still not impressed – it is still one of the lamest, not to mention dishonest (he somehow forgot to include a link to my article so his readers can see what I wrote for themselves) attempts at a rebuttal I’ve ever seen.

I cited election results, pointed out voting patterns at the state and local level, partisan registration, the actual history of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns and the Civil Rights Acts and so on. As you’ve noticed, I did my research and if you can find a fault in it, go ahead.

Either way, SFS studiously avoided all that in his so-called “debunking“, preferring instead to argue by assertion in simply recounting the very same anti-historical “Southern Strategy” storyline as received wisdom.

I thought his disingenuousness with regard to Zell Miller was impressive though. I mean, the Zell Miller who was Governor of Georgia (thanks to huge majorities of the black vote) from 1991 to 1999, Bill “First Black President” Clinton’s most important supporter in 1992, all of a sudden devolved back into a 1960s segregationist because he gave a “fiery” speech (apparently only Republicans give “fiery” speeches) at the GOP convention in 2004?

How about his *dumb* defense of the practice of citing the few Southern states that Nixon won in 1968 as proof of Nixon running a racist campaign while carefully failing to mention that George Wallace was on the ballot, and that Nixon barely won any more votes than he had gotten in 1960?

That you think SFS made any form of a point is, well … weird. I’d like to think you’re smarter than that.

I have so much to say but not enough time but let me hit some Reader’s Digest points:

The Civil Rights Act would not have passed without Republican votes. It would not have passed without Democrat votes as well. Check the vote numbers.

The KKK having members who were Democrats is not the same as the Democrat party creating the KKK. I’ve read the information on that link and the logic is faulty.

On Ronald Reagan, in 1966 Reagan stated he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. Some people point to his quote in 1965 where he says the Civil Rights Act should be supported by force if necessary. Michael Reagan has stated a few times how he and others had to “lobby” Reagan to get the MLK, Jr. bill signed.

On Willie Horton, Lee Atwater said the ad was used with racial notions intended. He also apologized to Black politicians on his death bed for his use of race in political races.

Here’s where I state I’m not a Dem, in fact, I’m Republican I just don’t overlook anyone’s trash.

Jack Kemp, Tony Snow, Mary Matalin, former RNC Chair Ken Melman have all stated where the GOP has used race as a divide. Kemp and Snow have stated the price they paid for saying the GOP shouldn’t ignore the Black vote. And despite what the blog mistress says, if you ignore a block of voters based on race, it’s the same as going after a block of voters based on race. If one is wrong, so is the other.

Lastly, Michael Steele, J.C. Watts, Shannon Reeves, and Ken Blackwell are all Black Republicans. All have stated the GOP needs to go after the Black vote. Watts, Steele, and Reeves have gone further and pointed out how the GOP appears to go out of the way to avoid Black voters.

A couple of weeks ago Watts was on Sean Hannity’s radio program and laid out his problems with the GOP very clearly.

Why is the party founded out of abolition of slavery, deliberately avoiding the descendent’s of the slaves?

Uh..

Jeremiah Wright said nothing about “evil whitey” in his sermons from 8 years ago.

He said that rich white people control America, which is only partly correct. It’s corporations, controlled by wealthy white men and so-called Jews that have controlling interests in America.

Those with the controlling interest do, and have done, good AND evil, respectively. Those deeds have impacted the lives of ALL Americans, and not just those of unknown African descent.

Ya’ll don’t get it. PEOPLE are no good…not just white people.

“All they have to do is continue to promise black Americans bigger and better government programs and government handouts”

One of the reasons the GOP gets hardly any Black votes is increadibly insipid and condescending analyses like this. As long as you conservatives continue to believe this b.s., you will continue to be relegated to the “also ran” pile where ALL minorities are concerned. See Dems get 90% of Black votes, and about 60 to 80% apiece of Hispanic, Asian and South Asian votes. This is consistent across ALL SOCIOECONOMIC CATAGORIES. As evidenced by my wife’s doctor, the Black woman with the Saab, the $400k brick home, and the kid in private school who votes straight Dem ticket. Or her partner, the Indian woman who would never dream of voting R. Do they vote that way, as LaShawn claims, because Dems “continue to promise black Americans bigger and better government programs and government handouts”. Of course not! It’s absurd.

The reason Blacks and Asians and Indians and Hispanics vote Dem is simple: the GOP, from 1968 up until VERY recently, made in clear that it was a party focused clearly on the issues of White America. There was no pretense at encouraging diversity; hell, the GOPers filed court briefs decrying diversity!

I see no mention in LaShawn’s post about Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond, nothing about Trent Lott and “all these problems” that came when Thurmond did not win, nothing about Reagan’s welfare queens and his “states’ rights” speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where Goodmen, Cheney and Schwerner were martyred, nothing about David Duke, nothing about the actual history of some of the more unsavory racial appeals the GOP conducted. How can you ask why Blacks (like my wife’s doctor) vote Dem and not mention Willie Horton?

THAT, conservatives, is why Blacks don’t vote GOPer. And here is another hint: if you want Black votes in the future, portraying Obama, a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law, as an affirmative action recipient, a secret Muslim, or a racist? Not gonna help in the future quest for minority votes! Because how do you think my wife’s doctor and her partner think about such protrayals?

I just stopped by to read what THEBIGDODDY was posting. His posts always bring a smile to my face. This particular post not so much. It really seems like people are talking AT eachother and not TO eachother. The more I read blogs like this, the more convinced I am that politics is the true opiate of the masses. I’m a black, registered independent but I lean conservative. That said, I believe that all this political bantering only serves to keep ALL PEOPLE divided. Politics does not help anybody. Politics only benefits those who falsely believe it benefits them. When are we all going to say enough and join together for the greater good of our society? I’m afraid never.

Heliotrope:

I thought I was being blatantly obvious and upfront. I am not here to espouse any religious or political innuendo. I was not trying to use any code words that speak to a small faction of society. It would be nice to see people look to each other for solutions and not our so called political leaders. I figured that a intelligent person such as yourself would inherently understand my term the greater good of society. I was wrong, so let me take some time to spell it out.

Americas issues:

1. Affordable energy; right now we are dependent on foreign countries to fuel our contry. We are capable of producing our own.

2. National infrastructure; presently our electrical grid, highways, bridges are sorely outdated and in need of repair.

3. Educational standards; America is no longer the leader in academics. Vast changes are needed to give all AMERICAN CHILDREN the competitive edge in the 21st century.

4. Obesity; too many of our countrymen are over-weight and healthy.

5. Health Care; do I really need to drone on about this debacle of a system?

6. Breakdown of the family; functional families are the key to a civil and stable society.

7. Immorality; our country is in constant upheaval due to immorality in our churches, businesses and political leaders.

8. Economic Decline; America no longer produces goods. A strong economy is based on production. Let’s figure out what we can produce again.

These are some of Americas problems. Feel free to add your own. These problems won’t be solved by the government or by religion. Let’s not forget faith without works is dead. These problems may seem huge, but when rational, intelligent, motivated AMERICANS come together our problems can be resolved. We won’t fix these and many other problems because of the paradigm of race, politics, religion and hubris. The last best hope of the world is fading away. I hope I’m dead so I don’t have to see it when it comes.

I don’t believe we have to battle each other Gabe. While we are battling each other, no advancements are made. So I guess we can just keep battling and declining in the process. Trying to engage people on a higher conciousness is pointless. Latter people.

Greg,

You need not answer Gabe or anyone else with a comment like this: ” Trying to engage people on a higher conciousness is pointless.”

“Higher consciousness” denotes an elitist, judgmental, superiority. If it is not, then it is pure innuendo and you owe the person you are dismissing a clear set of words that explain why he is not worthy of your time and wisdom.

And Y’Shua wasn’t crucified because of politics, but because of the POLITICIANS.

Questioning the status-quo and raising the consciousness of the people was an affront to those who lived to have preeminence over other men.

You can be a politician and be a righteous person, though its rare and recommended.

There are things that need to get done in the republic that just need to get done and only ENEMIES of the republic should suffer reproach. Liberals and conservatives could indeed fluctuate between friends and enemies of the republic, by their words and deeds.

Compromise.

Winston Churchill (paraphrasing) said that people sleep soundly at night while rough men are out doing violence against men who seek to do us harm.

Compromise. It’s not THAT deep, when you consider the context.