The "Southern Strategy": Reality Or Democrat/Press Myth?
By Martin A. Knight Posted in Elections | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (105) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
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 recieved from 1960, and in many cases even lost votes in terms of raw numbers. In other words, Nixon's "
... 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).
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 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. If the GOP had been smart enough to start gunning, for real, after the black vote just a decade ago, we would probably be thinking about how to get at least 35% in 2006, not a paltry 15%.
Martin, one thing is for sure: The GOP never gave the Dixiecrats anything in the form of policy or legislation, ever. One cannot point to any GOP President or GOP backed congressional legislation seeking to re-instate Jim Crow laws or address any of the Dixiecrat's concerns that caused them to abandon the Dem Party and vote GOP.
None.
Great post brother.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
and, regreatably, 1 measure of truth.
The denial is from Democrats who claim Lester Maddox was never "one of them." The projection is from people like
Hillary Clinton who has publically ridiculed and stereotyped the speech patterns of African American Mayors in the past while giving speeches to her rich, white, liberal pals. Hillary objects strenuously to the GOP using racial deviciveness. It's part of the VRWC.
The measure of truth, unfortunately is there. David Duke did win elected office in the GOP. That should NEVER have taken place. We even ran the evil SOB for governor. All I can say in the future, is lets, never be that stupid or wrong again.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
He won office claiming to be a Republican. But in Louisiana, there are no party primaries, and he won election in a district that probably had a Democrat registration advantage.
Oh yeah, he defeated a Republican too. One endorsed by Bush and Reagan.
It's hard for me to believe that Democrats didn't push Duke over the top in that race.
Had there been traditional primaries, Duke would have lost and faded away. Instead he made his career with a Democrat electoral system, that was meant to slant the table against Republicans.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
>>He won office claiming to be a Republican.
He won a non-partisan primary claiming to be a Republican, but lost the office (governor). He had previously been elected to other, local, offices, but always as a Democrat.
I believe I am right in saying that EVERY TIME he ran as a Republican the party disowned him and a he lost. He only ever won as a Dem.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
He was a state rep, a seat he won in 1989 after switching his party registration from Democrat to Republican. He ran against another Republican to win that seat.
It is simply wrong, however, to say the Republicans "ran" David Duke for anything. They have worked hard to distance themselves from him--calling him a Republican is like calling Lyndon LaRouche a Democrat--misleading at best.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
knows it. Heck, it's been in the NYT and on TV. So you're wrong. Republicans are racists and Democrats care about people not powerful corporations. Everybody knows.
So there.
(I think that sums up chicagorich's argument and the position of the Democratic Party as a whole. If I missed something, Moe will correct me.) :>)
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
...for the edification of each year's collegiate crop of Howard Zinn drones.
/dismounts bloggyhorse.
There's nothing like using a logical argument to make liberals start making personal attacks.
A logical argument about the crime prevention leads to a charge of racism.
A logical argument about the Civil Rights Act being unconstitutional brands a man as a racist for the rest of his life, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
A logical statement about federalism gets a man branded as a racist long after he dies just because of where he said it, rather than the context and intent of his statement.
If you can only respond to logic with an appeal to emotion, then you've already lost the debate.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
--Thomas Jefferson
one of the best indictments of the whole "GOP=racists" out there, and I think it is pretty much the fairytale you make it out to be.
Are there racists in the GOP? Sure, just like there are racists in the DNC and any other group out there.
This was good the first time around, and always bears repeating.
I urge anyone with a real interest in this subject to read Earl and Merle Black's The Rise of Southern Republicans. Just to be clear, one of their basic premsises is that competitive parties in the South is a good thing. Moreover, they do highlight one thing MartinAKnight indicates--the transformation doesn't really happen througout the South until well into the Reagan era, though it would vary considerably state by state. It is here where the conventional (call liberal if you must) wisdom is quite wrong. It is also important to remember the compromises Northern Democrats made with Southern Democrats through the first half of of the 20th century and the way those compromises helped maintain white supremacy throughout the South.
However, I think the mistake here is to look at this from the perspective of national party politics. Until the 80s, Southern politics were simply different than what one would find in the rest of the country. In order to really approach this topic, one needs understand ways Southern politics radically transformed during the civil rights period. No transformation was more obvious than the rise of a Southern Republican party. And to simply deny it had nothing to do with Democratic support for civil rights is to be very selective in one's reading of history and politics. Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond did switch parties, Northern Louisiana was home to some real nasty segregationists, and it is now a Republican stronghold. However, there is far more to a very complex story than just race.
And of course, the reality of the civil rights legislation of the sixties is that majorities of Northern Democrats and Republicans were necessary to pass the legislation in the face of solid Southern Democratic opposition. In the words of Black and Black, this, more than any other single event, destabilized the Southern "traditional one-party system."
Another important point that no one seems to remember is that the pre-civil rights Southern Republican party (where it managed to exist at all) was largely pro-civil rights. Certainly in Arkansas, had Wynn Rockefeller lived and won the Republican nomination for governor, more than a few African Americans would have remembered that history and gladly voted Republican.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
...when you have RNC chair Ken Mehlman apologizing for the dreaded Southern Strategy, as if there is anything wrong with opposing racial preferences and forced busing.
You can't honestly tell me that Republican racism is all just one big misunderstanding. Take some of the more prominent right wing pundits:
Limbaugh - Called the alleged raped stripper in the Duke Rape case a "ho".
Glenn Beck - Asked the first Muslim Congressman on air! to somehow prove he wasn't working with the terrorists. He went the extra mile earlier on, suggesting we put all Muslims behind barbed wire (no Nazi connitations here, folks, just look the other way) if there was another terrorist attack.
Michael Savage (ho! ho! There's a laundry list if I've ever seen one) - Encouraged listeners to burn the Mexican Flag. This from a man who wanted to see American Flag burners hung.
But that's not entirely fair. If George Stephanopolis were to come on to This Week in a Klan hood, I'd call foul if I heard someone label the Democrats the KKK party just on that.
So I guess we could look at voting records.
On the Voting Rights Act: A coutrie of Georgia Republicans seek to block the vote for renewing the act. This on the heels of instituting Voter ID Cards, which have drawn criticism for their avaliability among the poor and minorities.
On Lynching: Bill Frist refuses a roll-call vote on a Senate declaration against Lynching. Fifteen "annoyomous" Republicans register their decent without actually saying who they are.
On Abortion:
BLACK MAN #1: "If you make a little mistake with one of your 'hos,' you'll want to dispose of that problem tout suite, no questions asked."BLACK MAN #2: "That's too cold. I don't snuff my own seed."
BLACK MAN #1: "Maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican."
I don't know whether this is more deliberately racist (what's up with this "ho" thing? Last I checked, most black people still consider that an insult), or more deliberately misrepresenting of the pro-Choice movement. "dispose of that problem"? I can just imagine the man going at his woman with a hacksaw and a blowtorch.
Finally, when your National Party Chairman openly apologizes for it, as Ken Mehlman did, denying the Southern Strategy begins to sound alot like denying the Holocaust.
So you can go ahead and chew on that.
That is ...
I need to go offline so if the other folks here don't beat the living daylights out of you first, I'll be back to do the honors. I notice that you did not really meet my challenge, did you?
Anyway, suffice it to say that you taking all those really really lame instances (burning the Mexican flag is a sign of racism? - what about when you folks burn the American flag?) and claiming that this means that the GOP wants to put all black people in concentration camps and legalize lynching shows that you are a serious, serious idiot. You're citing Michael Savage? Really?
That's one thing I love about Lefties ... you're incapable of seeing a disagreement on policy as a disagreement on policy. You see it as a sign of moral torpitude.
Personally I'm offended that you think my being black renders me less capable of getting a photo ID than a white person. What the heck do you think I need to open a bank account, drive a car, join a video club or register for a course?
Like I said, I'll get back to you tomorrow.
PS: Mehlman was just pandering. And what he was apologizing for was the GOP's refusal to engage the black community ... not campaigning on racism.
I don't know who "my folks" are, but the point is the discrepency. One flag is so sacred that manhandling it gets you a death sentence, the other is to be burned in full view of the public to prove a point. What's the difference between the two? One flag belongs to the Mexicans. I don't know what your definition of "racist" is, but I can't imagine how this does not fit the bill.
Secondly, the voter ID law is a problem because
Under the Georgia law, residents would need to produce original birth certificates and other documents to get the new digital identification card. The cards could only be obtained at Department of Motor Vehicles offices.
But critics say that many potential voters do not have the required documents and that some could not afford the $20 processing fee for identification.
THAT is the real problem. And, to be fair, this isn't even a race issue so much as a class issue. When $20 to some is four hours of work at minimum wage, you effectively charge a person half a day's wages for the right to vote. A high black poverty rate adds suspicion of intent although, I agree, it is no more catagorically racist than any poll tax, but raises eyebrows.
The rest - the racist Republican ad, the racist Republican ad">racist Republican adinsulting Glenn Beck smear - can go unanswered as "really, really lame instances" that I suppose don't count for some reason.
Finally, you don't have a nice little input bar like Cole does at Balloon Juice, so linking is a bit of a pain. I'll promise to suck it up from here on in, though. Also, I came in wearing flame retardent pants, but I suppose everyone can fall victim to the "lalala, I can't hear you" ban stick. So go with whatever works for you.
P.S. It's worth noting that I didn't accuse all Republicans of being racist all of the time. And I won't, for a second, insinuate that Democrats are clear of all charges. Merely that if Republicans have earned a reputation as "racist" it has not gone unearned. There are fringe wings of the Republican Party that hate the colored man with a passion equal to or greater than those fringe groups of the Democratic Party that want to get rid of Capitalism. The Republican fringe just seems to score alot more airtime. If you don't like "Southern Strategy" and "R is for Racist", then quit sticking your heads in the sand and do something about it.
I know it's based on lies and ignorance, while I enjoy my life in the way I see fit. Meanwhile, that same ignorance keeps producing a Demcorat monopoly of 20+ city councilmen in Cleveland proper to continue running that city and the lives of its occupents into the ground. It's sad and disgusting, but I don't think I'm the one with my "head in the sand" or paying some sort of price for it.
The argument was there was no "Southern Strategy" and the Democrat Party has a far more racist history than Republicans. You did nothing to counter either argument.
Mine is the party that was on the right side of history with slavery in the 19th century, Communism in the 20th century and will be with terrorism in the 21st century. It is my party that is on the side of freedom and humanity. The judgement of your and your ilk means nothing to me, nothing.
You can either spend your next post explicitly calling them racists, whereupon you will be banned, explicitly apologizing to them for calling them racists - or do anything else, whereupon you will be banned.
Moe
PS: And while we're on the subject: presuming that you manage to survive the next five minutes, we expect our commenters to post links. If you don't know how, learn; if you can't learn, please save our bandwidth for the use of functional adults.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Do you really expect us to take you seriously when your UID is the name of the crazy wizard from Dragon Lance??
Yet another liberal who can't separate fantasy from reality.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
I'm even told that one or two of the Contributors are involved with role-playing games.
I know, I know: teh shock, teh horror. ;)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
but I think using characters as UID on political blogs is kind immature. Could just be me through.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
...whose name directly references a role-playing game, albeit in a profoundly ironic way these days.
Trust me on this. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Lacking in imagination? Most Certainly. Pretentious? Definitely, in this case (Fizban was the God of the Paladins, iirc...)
But mostly just lacking in imagination.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
On the Voting Rights Act: A coutrie of Georgia Republicans seek to block the vote for renewing the act. This on the heels of instituting Voter ID Cards, which have drawn criticism for their avaliability among the poor and minorities.
On Lynching: Bill Frist refuses a roll-call vote on a Senate declaration against Lynching. Fifteen "annoyomous" Republicans register their decent without actually saying who they are.
GA lawmakers tried to take the stance that GA and other states that they feel are now unfairly called out. What racists remarks did they make. What racists statements did they release?
Because they have the gall to say their state is light years different from the 50s and 60s as far as equal opportunity is concerned you want to label them racists? When did proving you are who you are become racist, one of the first things any law officer will ask you when you are approached is "let me see some ID", does this make the entire law enforcement community racist?
A roll call vote on lynching, get real. Why not waste time and have a roll call vote on British impressment.
Did Frist say that this vote wasn't white enough for him?
Even if I felt the statements from Limbaugh, Beck and Savage were not taken out of context (I feel they are), I would still ask you what states they represent and what elections did I miss in which they were elected. By the way, I do not like Savage in any shape, form or fashion but I cannot see anything wrong with burning the Mexican flag if you so choose as long as you are willing to take the backlash from Mexican citizens.
The gist of this diary was the implied racism that emanates non-stop from the left, and you just stated some good examples.
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
I don't think either party is inherently racist. But both play the race card for political gain. The Democrats pull out the "The Republicans are racists!" card all the time. Conversely the Republicans are more than willing to pander to white American fears.
But, IMO, that speaks more to politicians being willing to say whatever it takes to get votes.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
"Conversely the Republicans are more than willing to pander to white American fears."
And I'd like something a bit more overt than the "Call Me" ad which was clearly NOT racist.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
There is utterly no point in me doing so. I'll provide examples and the responses will range from indignant protestations to calls for my banning.
If you don't think the Republicans have done this sort of thing then there isn't much I can do.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
...one of two things (or maybe both):
1) Your examples are so weak that they're not worth you risking any credibility on them; or
2) You think we're all so close-minded that we won't listen to you tell us the truth anyway.
Why do you even make such a gratuitously insulting statement without backing it up? Do you think we all have something to learn from you?
The examples aren't weak but if you begin with a belief that the Republicans simply don't do this, then there isn't much chance of me succeeding in convincing you of anything on this matter. Since this is a Republican website I try to avoid criticizing the Republicans.
Any example I bring up can be argued either way, since I have no actual proof of their intentions. Perhaps the perceived fear mongering was just coincidence. I cannot say for sure. But I have a hard time believing that the sharpest spin doctors and political marketers aren't aware of the implied racial overtones in some of their advertising.
Oddly enough I'm guessing you are in agreement with my point on the Democrats.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I watched it slowly increase over the years among fellow liberals who didn't even realize they were developing racist attitudes, couched as they were in parochial concerns for "victims" that just can't make it without the Dems of course, and also participated in conversations with Dems that were outright racist in their startegies to get their votes and in the purposes behind legislaive policies.
I have seen no such equivalent behavior or phenomenon in the GOP.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
...that netiher party is racist but politicians of both sides play to the supposed racism of people from whom they want votes.
I don't need you or anyone else to prove that Republicans get called racists. Nearly every one of the few people who know I'm a Republican has hit me with being a Nazi or a racist or both. I know you liberals rarely get to experience this feeling, but take it from me, it's rotten when you can't participate in important discussions because you know you'll get a load of unanswerable excrement thrown at you for the simple purpose of shutting you up.
Since you're not willing to back up your statements about the other side of the coin, why should we even pay attention?
Does the name Willie Horton ring a bell?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The fact that Willie Horton was black has nothing to do with the fact that he was a predator who shouldn't have been let out of prison. Do you really believe otherwise?
Willie Horton was a horrible person. No question. But I find it unlikely that the RNC and the Bush Campaign were unaware of the racial overtones of showing a picture of a black criminal. Whether that was their intent or not, they had to know that many people would react to the racial aspects.
Politics is about imagery. Right or wrong, people react to imagery. That doesn't make you a racist. We are products of our society and the stereotypes that are foisted upon. We react viscerally to them. And I think that the Willie Horton ad probably got more than a few people with -D at the end of their name to vote for Bush.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
...if it had been a radio ad rather than a television ad (or print ad), it wouldn't have been racist?
I'm sorry, I just don't get it. As I said before, I really don't care about his color...AT ALL. I only care that he was a violent criminal.
It's the same with the Harold Ford ad. How people saw "racism" in that ad, I will never know. Personally, I think it's racist to believe that white women can't hit on black men. Maybe that's just me...
don't even realize it. I am not shy about calling this what it is. I have a vibvid memory of the old Southern racists and how they thunk/what they said and did from the 70's, and it is quite striking how they died out and/or changed while the Libs I used to be a part of in the Dem Party that loathed racism have become what they once loathed.
(I love to say "become what they once loathed"!)
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
I certainly would not try and suggest that one MUST react to the racial overtones.
But it does appeal to some people.
And no, the ad would not have had the racist overtone had it been a radio ad or had they not shown the image of Horton on the screen.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Willie Horton:
Is black: Appeals to racists.
Is a violent criminal: Appeals to everyone who wants to stay safe.
Which one appeals to more people and which one do you think was the reasaon for the ad?
Personally, I happen to think that there just aren't that many racists out there (there are quite a few, granted. But not that many).
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Horton influenced different kinds of people. I would agree that more were probably influenced by his criminal record.
But many people were influenced by the black thing as well. And the ad makers certainly knew they would catch political flak for showing the mugshot. But they felt it worth the political gain of showing him.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
So you have two kinds of people out there:
1) Those who don't want convicted murders and rapists running around free, victimizing their friends and family members
and
2) Those that have no problem with any of that, so long as the perpetrator is white.
Got it. Seems like that second group might be rather small, though.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Why are you trying to make this a binary choice?
How bout some people may have been indifferent to the story of Willie Horton that happened all the way up in Taxachussettes but may have had a visceral reaction to the image of a dangerous looking black man?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
It is at least theoretically possible that someone, somewhere in America saw that ad and had a "visceral reaction to the image of a dangerous looking black man". And it is at least theoretically possible that someone in GOP circles was at least aware of that possibility and still ran the ad.
You dream of things that never were and ask why not.
How bout some people may have been indifferent to the story of Willie Horton that happened all the way up in Taxachussettes but may have had a visceral reaction to the image of a dangerous looking black man?
That's pretty much option #2. I don't think there are very many people who are indifferent to rapists and murders being let out and reoffending, whether it was in Mass or next door. And those who don't care about any of that probably weren't affected much by the ad (since that was the entire point of the ad), no matter how racist they might be. Of course, I'm sure there were a few. Just as there would be a few that would have a visceral reaction if they had put an image of an alien in the ad, because they just finished getting abducted for the 14th time. You don't build ads to appeal to the small groups of crazies out there.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
That you think were "influenced by the black thing" voted GOP or Ever would vote GOP in the first place?
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
But it does appeal to some people.
Those who are most affected by to so-called "racial overtones" hidden in seemingly every message seem to be mostly Democrats, not Republicans.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
And from that the Democratic Party screamed racism.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
racist by assuming others see the same overtones and assume further that whites see black criminal and vote GOP because of said "overtomes". This is a perfect example of how the Libs have become what they once loathed, ie people who define everything by race. Can you identify anyone, other than yourself, who sees the overtones and, unlike you, because of same, votes GOP, assuming the GOP "gets it" in your overtone sensitive eyes.
Why don't you make a leap and join us in the MLK dream and treat human beings the same, regardless of race?
You know, I hesitate to ebate with you, because you have shown dire levels of regression in your logical thinking since we debated over a year ago. I pray for a F'hawk "reality mugging" (no broken bones or course).
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
So the ever popular "I know you are but what I am" defense is being brought out now, I see.
You seem to think we live in a colorblind world. A world in which white people never reflexively cross the street because they see a black man coming towards them. Unfortunately I have see it far too often to deny its existence.
Why I stop having to tell people that I don't like racist humor, I'll start believing that racism doesn't exist.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
beleive that we should let the racists control the dissemination of truth.
Racism, and all forms of hate will always exist. It is no longer legal, which is wonderful. It is no longer a part of Southern Culture as well.
It is a huge part of the fictional world the Dems sell to get votes.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
So you'll blithely continue calling me a racist. Ok. Well I can't stop and obviously courtesy and general respect don't inhibit you either.
When did racism become illegal?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
And you know that, GC.
The Civil Rights Act outlawed certain ACTIONS. Racism itself is still certainly legal.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Pointing out that "this is not a colour-blind world" the longer it will remain thus.
The more people we have who are willing to be "colour-blind" the quicker we will resolve the issues of racism.
So things like white men (or black men as the case may be, I've seen that too) crossing the street because a member of another "race" (or sex, even) is coming toward them happen. Right. We don't disagree with you on this. What we disagree with is giving those people who do these things validity by allowing them to dictate how you approach a discussion or ad or anything at all.
Make the decision to rise above that. Give up on the "world of colour" and join the rest of us, would you?
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
The fewer people we have that are willing to point out examples of bias, the more likely that bias will perpetuate.
I'm not sure why you think I live in some "world of colour". Because I am capable of understanding imagery and its impact?
That doesn't mean I am looking for racists in every context. As I said in my very first post in this diary, I don't think that Republicans are racist. But they also understand how images can make an impact.
In the case of Willie Horton is entirely possible that they WANTED the controversy of showing a black man. They very well realized that if they created a controversy the ad would get free press. Without the controversy it is just another add.
More than anything else regarding this matter, I believe that campaigners and political operatives are willing to do just about anything to win an election. If they know something they did would outrage the people that don't vote them but would energize their electoral block, they'll do it without losing a moments sleep.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
when you said:
1-In the case of Willie Horton is entirely possible that they WANTED the controversy of showing a black man. They very well realized that if they created a controversy the ad would get free press. Without the controversy it is just another add.
2-More than anything else regarding this matter, I believe that campaigners and political operatives are willing to do just about anything to win an election. If they know something they did would outrage the people that don't vote them but would energize their electoral block, they'll do it without losing a moments sleep.
Many democrats are racists and think everyone else is, and voila.
No, Hawk I don't think you hate Blacks, but you have bought into racist ideas and views.
stop before its too late
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
but my understanding is that the Bush campaign ads never mentioned that Horton was black or used his photo, and that the only visual was a revolving door.
Other ads did show his face, including ads run by Al Gore in the primaries, so people may have known he was black from other sources, but could not have got that information relying solely on official sources.
I do realise this was pre-internet, and a great deal of it is disputed, but this is my understanding.
Since my exchange with ChicagoRich inspired Martin to repost this, let me make one thing clear about my own views. I have not said that no Republican has ever run a racially charged advert. Taking a firm stand against quotas is something that is hard to do without the risk of inflaming racial tensions, and I would certainly have counselled against the Jesse Helms ad on this. But opposing racial quotas is a respectable position to take.
It is Democrats - and almost exclusively Democrats - who have advocated segregation. And even if you disagree with Helms on employment preferences, I am sure you will concede that George Wallace sending Condoleeza Rice to the black school, claiming she wasn't good enough to be educated with white kids, is the real crime here.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
>>but could not have got that information relying solely on official sources.
should read:
but could not have got that information relying solely on official Republican sources.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
The ad was wrong by a PAC and most certainly showed his face....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o
There is no question that the Democrats have plenty of baggage in the race department.
I would like to see national voting patterns before and after Reagan for African-Americans. It seems to me that, for whatever reason, African-Americans turned in droves from the Republican Party during this time. I really don't know why.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
>>It seems to me that, for whatever reason, African-Americans turned in droves from the Republican Party during this time. I really don't know why.
Goldwater's pecentage of the African American vote was derisory.
One reason is that Democrats run scare campaigns accusing Republicans of being racist. Another is the issue of affirmative action, which many African Americans support. But I think I share your puzzlement. Neither of them seems sufficient to me. It is partly that Republicans have not engaged in outreach, and they should. African Americans suffer most from welfare state boondoggles like public schooling and social security.
On the advert, I think there was an official Bush ad that did not show his face, while other adverts did. I think that is what I said above.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
But those scare campaigns wouldn't have any legs if there wasn't something to work off of.
I suspect that a lot of African-Americans were turned off by some of the imagery that Reagan used such as the Welfare queens(I'm not suggesting that the imagery was racist. I am simply suggesting that many African-Americans took it that way).
Goldwater may have been an outlier as he was running against someone who championed Civil Rigths.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
If he was white do you think it would've impacted the design of the ad in the least bit? Would they have left out the photo? Or would they have dug up a black actor to pose for the photo? Or just photoshopped it to make him appear black?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Maybe they would have, maybe they would not have. I have no way to say.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The question that the issue raises (and it was first done by Democrat Joe Biden in the primary)is:
What so you think of the judgement of a man who would allow a convicted murderer out on a weekend furlough?
You won't be surprised to learn that he committed another murder.
So... What do you think? Is that a good idea? Should a man who approves such a policy be president of the United States?
I think that to cite racism here masks the true issue of Governor Dukakasis' poor judgement.
thestalkinghorse
The simplicity of your post is a thing of beauty. Bravo
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
what you are referring to.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
...was specifically discussed in the main text and reasons given as to why calling it racially motivated would be incorrect. If you'd like to explore what you consider to be the flaws in said reasoning, feel free; but it has been already addressed.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I will respond to Martin's post if there is anything I that I disagree with.
I really am not looking to start up a "The GOP are racists" debate. I don't believe it and it serves no purpose.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Now if you could get your party to quit calling us racists in EVERY campaign, I'd appreciate it.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I didn't think that my comment was really that contentious. Apparently I was mistaken because even tepid criticisms of the Republican Party are unacceptable.
Is it really that difficult to accept that the Republican Party would pander to their constituency?
As I said I don't think the Party is racist. But both parties are willing to swallow their ethics, at times, if it means getting more votes.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Is it really that difficult to accept that the Republican Party would pander to their constituency?
Because your post reads like this: "I don't think the party is racist, but their constituency is, therefore they make racists statements"
Which is why I would like examples.
Now I am not going to argue that there are no racists in the GOP, but to be honest, I don't really see systemic racism in the GOP, I see a lot of policy opposition on things regarding race-such as affirmative action or hate crimes laws-that gets the "racist" handle hung on it solely because the democrats define opposition as "racist."
Policy differences do not racists make.
And to be honest I have seen some of the most racist actions in recent years coming out of the DNC, not the GOP. Your example above was Willie Horton-which was almost 20 years ago. I can cite the treatment of Steele in Maryland, the "another black church is going to burn" commercial, and the lovely NAACP ad against Bush that intimated he was somehow responsible for the dragging death of a black man in Texas. Those are three immediate examples, and all of them within the last 6 years.
I know it was not you who originally claimed the Willie Horton ad was racist, but I still fail to see how it could be viewed that way. Horton was a rapist and murderer who was released on a furlough program supported by then-Gov. Dukakis, and while on the furlough, pistol-whiped, knifed, and raped another woman. I don't understand how pointing out Dukakis' weak record on crime is racist. Simply because Horton himself was black? This isn't directed at you, but I'm sorry, I made the mistake of looking at the persons actions, not his skin color.
On a very big stretch of the imagination, I COULD see the claim being made that the Bush campaign was "fear mongering" (i.e. "See, if Dukakis wins, he'll release all the prisoners and you'll be raped and murdered!") However, that itself is a BIG stretch. How that leads to charges of a "racist" ad, I'll never know.
you could make a case maybe for "fear mongering" but then given the political climate at the time with regard to truth and sentencing, early paroles and similar, it was a legitimate criticism of Dukakis who was indeed fairly soft on crime.
My point was that Flyerhawks example of republicans playing the race card was one from 20 years ago-while I could name at least 3 incidents from the DNC without doing much thinking from the last 6 years.
that Republicans, as a whole, are any more likely to be racist than Democrats, although I think that the racism that a Democrat may exhibit is different than what a Republican might.
I certainly don't think that the Republican Party is systemically racist.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
although I think that the racism that a Democrat may exhibit is different than what a Republican might.
Racism is racism isn't it? So what does a republican do differently in their racist endevours from a democrat?
A Republican racist (they exis, unfortunately, just not in any real numbers, thank God):
Violent and aggressive and will take out his racism on a small number of victims before he is stopped or he will hide that racism for fear of getting caught.
A Democratic racist:
Quiet and methodical. Will enact/vote for laws that will systematically erode the abilities of those he finds inferior to rise above the station into which they are born and cause him to become addicted to government assistance.
Got to wath out for the quiet ones...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
I probably should not get into this - I support the GOP and I agree that this whole 'racist' angle has been overplayed. But I was in North Carolina during the 1984 elections. I was a volunteer for Bill Hendon's successful run to knock Jamie Clarke out of his seat in Congress. That gave me a close up look as Jessie Helms campaign and he did play on white fears. I saw some of the literature that his people produced - it was not all that subtle - this was in the western part of the state. That 'white hands' add that he ran in 1990 was not an exception to his way of presenting things. I was only 17 so I couldn't vote, but I would have voted for Helms - but I would have felt a little unhappy doing it.
I dont think the Republican party is racist. I think at one point they were much like the democrats were. The Republicans have used racial prejudice as a wedge issue in the past. (As did Democrats) Here is a recent example of how the Southern Strategy was used by the Reagan campaign. Reagan knew exactly what was going on when he went to Philadelphia, MS. Denying t
at least I assume you do since you can hear these dog whistles.
_________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
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.
Martin,
While I certainly agree that it would be foolish to claim that the only thing the Horton ad tried to do was appeal to racists. It certainly did far more than that. And it was an effective ad.
But there is some factual basis.
Nixon did indeed have a "Southern Strategy", just as any person running for President needs to have a strategy to collect sufficent electoral votes, and you shouldn't write off a portion of the country as electorally significant as the entire South, (remember this includes Texas).
This strategy consisted of three main prongs:
1: Appeal to patriotism. Nixon was well aware that support for the war was strongest in the South, so he planned to use his case for a peace with honor to appeal to the South.
2: Appeal to smaller government. This was mainly with meaningless actions that gave an appearance of pro-small government, while actually promoting big government to appeal to the MidWest and New England- and to be fair promoting Southern favored government spending as well. (Not to start a fight here, but the South, while supportive of small government in theory has a tendancy to then get as much of the pie for itself as possible.)
The above two planks are very similar to Bush. And even more effective, (hence all the screaming about it).
The third plank is the one that brings up the charge of racism:
3: Oppose School Busing for Racial Balance. This is still a controversal issue today- and is even unpopular with many black parents. Democrats accuse Nixon of using this issue to "signal" that he was opposed to civil rights for Black Americans, and they may be right. However, it should also be clear to any unbiased historian that Nixon never intended to actually deliver on any such "unspoken promises". As for the busing issue itself- that was an issue that appealed to many New England voters as well as Southern voters. In fact if I remember correctly Nixon annouced his opposition to busing in Conn. to big aplause.
So you can judge for yourselves if Nixon promoted racism as a means to political power. While I think that is far too harsh a critisim to level at the Republican party as a whole, or even at Nixon himself- I do feel that there was a significant amount of "Tricky Dick" in the Southern Strategy.
racists action. I think it clearly is racist to choose children to attend schools at great distances from their home based solely on the color of their skin. So oposition to bussing is oposition to racism, therefor not racism.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
of commenting on a diary without bothering to read it.
Can you tell I've been playing Clue with my daughter?
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I only skimmed through the original diary at first. Since I actually thought I in general agreement with the diarist I didn't read the entire thing.
I have since read it.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
to skimming (at first) as well. I was taking a break while studying for final exams. Now that I have taken a break from taking a break, I have read the whole thing. Definitely a good job by Mr. Knight! Conservatives and Republicans have unfairly been burdened with the "racist" label for quite a while now, and frankly, the charge doesn't hold water. Now, while there are certainly individuals within both parties who are racists, neither can be labeled as a "racist" party.
As for flyherhawk: I like having you around on the boards. I know you must feel like you're walking on eggshells at times, but I appreciate you bringing the "other side" of the debate when possible. It allows me to reflect on opposing arguments for a moment before completely dismissing them as absurd. Just kidding.
In any case, I can't remember if it was you or someone else who brough up the Jesse Helms affirmative action ad. Now, to me, that WAS an appeal to race. I may, in fact, be way off base, as I only saw the ad once and it was quite a few years ago, but I remember feeling a bit uncomfortable about that one. But, so far, that's the only Republican ad that I can personally remember that I believed had some sort of appeal to race, and that was a while ago.
Political demographics changed in the South for reasons other than racial issues. Institutional racism was pretty much dead by 1968 because of national legislation and court rulings. The issues that pushed the South to the Republican Party had to do with other liberal changes in the Democratic Party.
Much like today, the Democratic Party platform was captured by the more extreme members of the party. The biggest issue of the day was Vietnam. Much like today, Democratic politicians jumped on the anti-war bandwagon (Humphrey, Mondale, McCarthy, etc.), which convinced the liberal fringe that there was more hope in the Democratic party than in the Republican Party. These folk considered the Republican party as the party of the rich, and abandoned all recognition of the contribution of the Republican Party in the areas of race and opportunity.
Much like dailyKos folks today, radical groups such as the Weathermen, SDS, Panthers, etc. attacked the Democrats for not being sufficiently liberal, socialist, and anti-American. Does anyone besides me remember the sit-ins, the riots, the Democratic convention in Chicago? These events created an image of the Democratic party as the party of the loons. Again, much like today, except more violence.
The impact of the radicals was to push the Democratic party to become more liberal and to propose racial policies that went beyond equality to reparations, over-balancing to pay for past sins. The anti-war Democratic leadership was already influenced by the socialism of Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc, and accepted the demands as the platform for Democrats. The transformation was complete: Democrats were willing to buy off blacks by overbalancing the books, and they became the party of the racial equality.
Nixon won in 1968 because he represented the more traditional views of the South. He was the law-and-order candidate. The conservative South was disgusted with the riots, and supported Nixon. When the Democrats adopted abortion as a party platform, the transformation of the South was complete. Were there racists in the South? Absolutely. And there were (and still are) racist in South Boston and Bensonhurst. But the institutional racism was dead, and no one knew that better than the South.
The issues that moved the South to the Republicans were not race.
Barry Goldwater was right back then, he's right today, and he'll be right tomorrow: Exhume Goldwater '08!
I've always heard the Southern Strategy (tm) more associated with Nixon's 1972 run than his 1968 run. The idea theoretically being that without a major third party candidate he could position himself where he was a more acceptable candidate than McGovern was to those who had voted for Wallace in 1968.
Both Parties changed. The agreements that had kept vastly different groups of Democrats together since 1932 basically came apart in the late 1960s with those parts of the Democratic Party following Robert Kennedy (and those similar) pushing policies completely unacceptable to the Democrats of the South. The Republican Party's policies were more acceptable and changed somewhat to accept those who were driven out, a side effect of that was to flip the southern blacks...
In short, the Democrats changed policies in the 1960s, the Republicans changed policies in the 1970s to take advantage of the changes that the Democrats had made.
Randy
Parties change their policies all the time. But in the context, your implication is that Republicans changed their policies to attract racists. Name one such policy change.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
They didn't change policies to attract racists, but they did change policies to become more welcoming to southern whites in general. Two examples of this are the greater concentration on the advantages of religion in the public life and the policies that the federal government should stay out of certain other areas...
Although I am not sure the cause and effect is quite so simple. Southern conservatives were bound to shift GOP once no-one was offering them segregation, which had bound them to a party with which they otherwise disagreed. Southerners joining the GOP has been as much a cause of the guns, gays and god focus as the other way round.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
That in 68 Nixon used Wallace to make himself look like the logical center candidate. But once Wallace was shot and out of the race Nixon moved in to take advantage of those Wallace voters. I'd be interested to see the voting data in the 72 election more than in 68.
International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.
Nixon won every state except MA. He also took 60% of the popular vote to McGoverns 38%. In other words, it was a blowout of FDR proportions. Since the whole country voted for Nixon I think we can eliminate Southern racism as being behind their voting pattern.
It's remarkable that ever since the Dem's started running people like McGovern for POTUS they have been losing the South, and pretty much losing period. I'm personally happy for them to continue to blame their problems on racist voters, hope none of them read Martins blog, and I hope they go with Kucinich in 08.
I think the "Southern Strategy" that is leaving a bitter taste in the mouth of some is push of a socially conservative agenda (strongly identified with Southern Protestants), and not racism.
This article from the Philiadelphia Inquirer examines why the Republican Committee of Lower Merion and Narberth is balking at the loss of moderates, and hence elections, in southeast PA.
I think the Southern Strategy is a figment of the Democrats' imaginations, just like their claim that President Bush won in 2004 on 'values voters' instead of the war.
30 years ago it was racists, today it's 'theocrats.' They always have to have someone to blame.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
Fawlty as in Fawlty Towers, the German episode, where a deranged Basil admonishes the staff "whatever you do, don't mention the war".
Similarly, we are encouraged NEVER to mention the (Vietnam) war, and ONLY to look at the issue of civil rights laws (a non issue by the late 1960's) in explaining the growth of Republicanism in the south.
Whenever this subject comes up, the Democratic propagandists turn on their information vacuum machine that sweeps out of sight the evidence of all the other factors that pushed Republican growth: the debacle in Vietnam, student activism and radical chic, the debacle of the 1970's economy, the discovery of a constitutional right to abortion, the growth of a modern industrial/service economy in the South, immigration from the north, the Soviet adventurism that became clear even to Jimmy Carter by 1980, etc.
Oh, yes, Carter reminds me. If the South is so noxious to liberal moralists, why did the Democrats have a southerner on their ticket in 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004?
Food for thought, no?
I'm perfectly open to the idea that I'm wrong; that the "Southern Strategy" truly occurred like the Democrats and the Press say it did.
But I want proof. No more appeals to what "everyone knows" or any other type of conventional wisdom. Dishonest arguments by dishonest moby hacks like this guy here are not kosher. I want cites to contemporary articles, campaign flyers, transcripts of speeches and all them other things that actually proves that Republicans made their gains in the South on the backs of racial appeals.
In order to assist, here's a link to to a website where you can view all the televised Presidential political campaign adverts from Eisenhower till 2004. Pick out the racist one (from the Republican side) and explain why you think it's racist.
I also want proof to show that millions and/or thousands of Southerners switched parties (or voting habits) from Democrat to Republican in the immediate aftermath of the Civil Rights Acts being passed to substantiate claims that Dixiecrats moved en masse to the Republican Party or started voting straight-ticket Republican. Note that this should not include the Presidential elections in which Southern and Northern votes are identical i.e. 1972, 1980 and 1984. Also, take note of the fact that the Southern electorate that elected Talmadge (D), Stennis (D), Ellender (D) and Sparkman (D) are not the same electorates that are electing Cochran (R), Vitter (R) and Sessions (R) today.