“What do you mean ‘Democrats are the real racists'”?
How often has someone asked you this question? I get it all the time from younger people– 30 and below especially. I used to recite the many instances of institutionalized racism Democrats authored and enforced to keep blacks slaves, then sharecroppers and segregated when it suited whites. I recite all the common talking points of Democrats voting against voting rights during the civil rights movement, rescinding voting rights 2 decades after Republicans gave blacks voting rights following the Civil War, the KKK being created by an elected Democrat as an enforcement vehicle against blacks and Republicans, etc…
The eyes of my audience remain blank and unimpressed. These people have been raised to believe the Democrats are blacks’ best friend in government and Republicans are hostile to blacks. While most know Democrats in the south fought to continue slavery, they believe that the racists in the south became Republicans and those opposed to racism became Democrats. They don’t know how or why such a thing happened, but they know it did. The fact that blacks vote for the Democrats over 90% of the time reinforces this belief.
This level of misunderstanding must be overcome through a rather lengthy explanation:
Democrats use fear as a tool very effectively. Southern whites were convinced that if blacks could own guns they would immediately shoot every white person they saw. If a black man could look at and speak to a white woman without being beaten or hung, they would rape every white woman they saw. If blacks drank from the same water fountain the water would carry disease. If blacks ate from the same food counter, the food would make whites sick. As crazy as this may sound, people believed it. (If your listener(s) have an incredulous look on their face ask them if they would drink water or eat food in close proximity to a rat, they’ll get the idea).
Then Republicans forced desegregation in the south causing the myths about blacks to begin fading.
Suddenly the main tool of control was lost to the Democrats. They could no longer sell them selves as the party of the white man and win elections. The Democrats went to the class warfare that served them well in the north and west. The Democrats sold themselves as the protector of the working man and the poor, fighting to stop the “repression” of the rich.
Blacks, however, knew better. They supported Republicans in large numbers with their newly restored voting rights. The “blue” South started turning purple. The Democrats needed to re-establish their political dominance in the South. Southern whites were learning that their fears of blacks were largely unfounded. With the Democrats main tool of control fading away, Southern whites began to align themselves politically based on moral values and basic economic philosophy. Southerners were and are more rural by nature which causes people to be more self-reliant. They are less likely to be in a union, less likely to be an immigrant or first generation natural born American, more patriotic, and more impressed by history than change. (e.g.- a Southerner will recommend a hundred year old restaurant first wheras a New Yorker will recommend the newest “hot” restaurant first) Over time, whites in the South found the message of the GOP to resonate more than the Democrats. And this is how Southern whites became Republicans.
Simultaneously, blacks were finding them selves realigning toward the Democrats. The racial rhetoric started to die down, and the desire to “dance with the one who brung them” faded. The social programs ushered in by the “Great Society” were attractive to the under educated, low income, black community in the South. Their was heavy immigration of blacks from the south to the north, looking for work and opportunity. When they got factory jobs they became union members and their desires from government changed. They also found “free” housing, welfare payments, food stamps, and racial quotas in hiring attractive.
So a century after the Republicans and Democrats went to war, the decendants of the soldiers and the slaves changed sides. And a half century after that, the current crop of immigrants and first generation natural born Americans are unaware of the change, assuming that current alignments are rooted in racial history rather than evolving moral and economic values.
Conservatives must educate younger and immigrant voters about the truth of why some groups vote as they do. We must no longer cede the racial high ground to the historic party of racism. Most people understand the allure of government money in the black community and why they vote Democrat but they do not understand how racist whites in the South became Republicans without bringing their racist beliefs with them.
@Greg:
Go away with your radical leftist links, Greggie, or I’ll bust your chops again.
@Redteam:
I can’t tell you person for person where they went, but in former Confederate States, the vote total for Democratic Candidates in 68 and 72 went from 32% to 29%. The vote total for Nixon went from 34% to 69%, an increase of 35%. In 68, Wallace took 34%. So is it unreasable to assume that Wallace’s 35% were a large part of Nixon’s 34% increase? If not, please explain how the math would work that his 35% somehow all ended up in the Democrats 29%.
To be fair, Carter’s vote totals in the South were much higher in 76, but he was religious moderate Democrat from Georgia running against a moderate Republican from Michigan.
@Tom:
When comparing ’68 to ’72, revisionists like you ignore one thing: McGovern himself. To begin with, no one wanted to run with him. He had gained the reputation of being for “abortion, amnesty and pot” and finally chose a weak horse in Tom Eagleton. He was not palatable to the Bible Belt and so Democrats voted for the incumbent in Nixon.
You cannot say, with any measure of certainty, that Southern Dems jumped ship;
Wordsmith
they are fighting for their democratic agenda,
as if their lives depend on it , watch TOM, on and on telling anyone to not believe it, HEY, NOTHING YOU CAN SAY WILL
MAKE A CHANGE OF YOUR PROFILE,
SAY they change face, GREG IS IN TO HELP, AND RICHARD WHEELER, THE GANG IS DISORIENTED, THEIR HEAD ARE SPINNING, HOW DARE YOU ACCUSED THE REPUBLICANS OF RACIST, SHAME ON YOU DEM,
AND THEIR MESSIAH IS uncover along the HILARY party of them was racists,AND CRUEL,
once RACIST ALWAYS RACIST, IT’S IN THEIR GENES FAR DOWN THE 1800 plus,
you all have been uncover forever you carry the mark of the beast who tormented the blacks, and kill many more, like DEMONS FROM HELL, NOW WE KNOW
@retire05:
Whatever you say, Retire. The 5 million Southern voters who voted for Wallace all became Democrats and then they all decided to vote for Nixon. And they’ve all been Democrats ever since, even though they seem to vote Republican quite often. Makes perfect sense.
@Tom:
You obviously don’t understand the Southern voter. They would never vote, at least in 1972, someone they thought supported abortion, amnesty and pot. And that was the rumor about McGovern. Also, why did every prominent Democrat turn him down when it came to the VP spot so that he wound up choosing Eagleton, who was a hindrance, not a help, only to replace Eagleton late in the game?
Yellow Dogs may jump the fence in one election, maybe two, but not permanently. And yes, Yellow Dogs treat party affiliation like an inheritance.
Every state in the union voted for Nixon in ’72, save Massachusetts. In ’76, the south flipped back for Carter, but Carter was such a pathetic president, Reagan won against him in a landslide, like Nixon in ’72.
The South wasn’t really voting for Nixon or Reagan, they were voting against McGovern and Carter.
If you are going to blather on about Southern voters, at least learn something about them besides what you read in Northeastern liberal publications.
@Richard Wheeler:
You were up late.
Depression. Sorry. I was told it was funemployment.
Tom:
There’s a passionate and pointed way to express one’s views on political policy and then there’s hysterical nonsense.
Thomas Sowell is neither.
@Richard Wheeler:
“Thanks for your studied “cherry picked” input.”
Facts are facts.
@Tom:
“So is it unreasable to assume”
ASSUME
Why’d I allow myself to be an ass?
We’ll let that linger.
@Tom:
Do you consider the Republicans of the 1860s or the 1920s “conservative” by today’s standards?
Would JFK be considered a Democrat today?
@mossomo:I’m gonna put my word in:
Yes. The conservatives in the South today would support desegregation and be anti slavery.
JFK likely would be on the Republican ticket if he ran today.
I actually believe, especially fiscally, that JFK would be to the right of GW Bush.
@Redteam: No member of the Kennedy family has ever been a Republican or probably ever will be.
John Kennedy would be a Democrat if alive today.
Would Conservatives in the South today support Lincoln? Would you?
@Richard Wheeler: Yeah, it’s a different world today, kinda like Teddy and FDR were still in the same party.
Oh, yeah, and you didn’t tell us if you’re wearing knickers.
@Richard Wheeler:
He would be far right of GW Bush, Mitt Romney, Chris Cristie, John McCain. And not in the same hemisphere with BO.
@Richard Wheeler:
While I would support the abolition of slavery, I would not support any American President that ordered military action against American civilians and ordered their death. The situation could have been settled peacefully without over 600,000 Americans being killed. Those 600,000 are on Lincoln’s shoulders.
I didn’t support the use of Federal troops in Arkansas to enforce integration. All they had to do was say what the law is. Americans are law abiding people. If I were on the police force and was told that the law was that Americans could attend Central High school, then I would enforce that law. The military would not be necessary.
@Redteam: Answered on #21 other post– Keep it Real Conservs.—stay focused RT.
@Redteam: On social issues JFK would be in line with today’s progressive Dems. On economic issues he’d be a Blue Dog Dem.
@Richard Wheeler:
Oh my Johnny, ye hardly knew him at all………………
@Richard Wheeler:
I just can’t see JFK wishing socialism on anyone. That’s not why he risked his life in the South Pacific.
@Redteam:
They did “say what the law is” and how did local and State authorities react? The Governor sent in the National Guard to prevent nine terrorized children from entering a school. You might need to kick some dust out of your brain the next time you wax nostalgic.
@RedteamJFK : Social issues –advancing civil rights,women’s rights,human rights.Promoting immigration reform,supporting stem cell research. Staunchly protecting the environment-he loved the sea. He’d support education and The Arts-loved classical music.Loved sports.We’d still have a space program.
Re the economy–he would be much like Clinton. A strong supporter of business.
Wounded on PTIO9, he loved The Navy and would strongly support our military.
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler:
Social issues: do you really think that JFK would be in step with the left’s constant bashing of Christians, or would try to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to sign a document stating they will allow some insurance company to provide abortion services to the employees of the Little Sisters of the Poor? Really?
Financial issues: Tell me what part of JFKs speech to the Economic Club of New York would fit in with the standards of the current Democratic Party?
Blue dog? Which ones? The DNC purged itself of the blue dogs. The ones that wield the power now are the ones whose names are listed on the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a caucus started by a Socialist and currently being chaired by another Socialist.
How about foreign policy? Do you think that JFK would have handled Iraq and Afghanistan like Obama has, with full approval from his party? We have lost Iraq. Your brothers in arms bleed and died in Fallujah and Ramadi only for us to see Al Qaeda take those cities back and fly the black flag of jihad over them. Do you think JFK would be holding clandestine meetings with the Taliban?
How about American exceptionalism? Would JFK be going to other nations saying the things about America that Obama has said, bowing to Saudi princes, appointing Muslim Brotherhood proponents to his administration?
You want to rewrite JFK. You can’t. He was not only a fiscal hawk, he was a military hawk. And a metro-sexual like Pajama Boy would never be representative of his administration.
@Richard Wheeler:
JFK : Social issues –advancing civil rights,women’s rights,human rights, equal rights for all, not creating protected classes and special treatment rights .Promoting legal immigration reform,
supporting stem cell research but not embryonic stem cell research . Staunchly protecting the environment-he loved the sea but would not block a pipe line that would aid in energy independence from hostile nations. He’d support education and The Arts-loved classical music thru private funding .Loved sports but would not be supporting genderfication. We’d still have a strong space program.
There, fixed it for you.
@retire05: The question was would JFK be a Democrat today? The answer is a resounding Yes. Ask Caroline. The Dems. have a big tent,
He damn sure wouldn’t have been a Repub.
@Richard Wheeler:
Perhaps, but only if the Democratic Party was much different than it is today.
Are you saying she has the ability to channel her dead father?
@retire05: Caroline knows more about her father than you do 05.
You’ve accused him of being a drug addict. The back injury he sustained when blown off PT109 in WWII left him in pain throughout his life.
“Let every nation know whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden,
meet any hardship,support any friend, oppose any foe ,to assure the survival and success of liberty.”
JFK
@Richard Wheeler:
.
True, but I don’t think she can channel a man who died 50 years ago. And Caroline is a political opportunist, which runs rampant in her family.
It is accepted that JFK was hooked on certain drugs, not only for his back injury, but the Addison’s Disease he suffered from. JFK had access to the finest doctors the military could provide yet he chose to use Dr. Feelgood. Dr. Feelgood (as Bobby Kennedy called him) lost his license due to of giving other people the same crap he gave JFK. JFK also had a strong “libido” that he had trouble controlling. Considering the amount of drugs JFK took, by today’s standards he would have been considered drug impaired.
Don’t try to whitewash JFKs bad side. It was there, and it is part of history. But for you to think he would be a Democrat by today’s Democrat Socialist standards, you are dead wrong.
@Tom:
Tom,
What civil rights legislation, precisely, do conservatives support “rolling back”? And are you sure you actually understand the conservative position (say, on the recent Supreme Court decision- on ONE section- of the Voting Rights Act)? Because the implication from the liberal side of the fence is to pull out the race card on that one in regards to why conservatives take the position that they do. To me, it’s intellectual dishonesty/laziness/ and a copout on the part of liberal race-baiters, race-mongers, and race profiteers.
And what civil rights for gays is being fought against?
@Tom:
I think the problem here is that you aren’t fully getting the context of what Thomas Sowell is speaking of. His point here requires elaboration- best done by reading some of his work. I recommend his book, “Black Rednecks and White Liberals”. I personally think that Thomas Sowell is a brilliant conservative, libertarian, clear thinker.
Are you sure that Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” was a racist appeal? I’m not a fan of World Nut Daily; but what do you make of Pat Buchanan’s account of it in this article?
In regards to the ’68 and ’72 Election, didn’t those campaigns hinge quite a bit around the Vietnam issue? (Nixon’s “Peace with honor” over McGovern’s “Come Home, America” slogan?)
@Wordsmith:
Yes, federal oversight on states changing voting rules. And Justice Roberts side-stepped Constitutionality, rather making an oddly arbitrary and activist (in the sense of overturning precedent) argument why the legislation shouldn’t stand: “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,”. Congress overwhelmingly renewed the Act in 2006 with every Republican senator voting for it, so what has changed? I would argue that changing demographics in Republican states have pushed this issue into the forefront of conservative fears about losing their grip on power, and they now see it as an impediment. The irony of course is that the mounting pressure from the Right to invalidate preclearance has everything to do with changes wanted by Republicans in states that could never withstand it. Is it not a strange argument to say something is not needed because it would stop the very thing its intended to prevent? It’s like a robber telling you your store doesn’t need a security guard because that will prevent him from walking in and stealing.
As to this being just “ONE” section, I would not bet against – with this Supreme Court – it being merely a first nibble.
Do you think proponents of the VRA fifty years ago were not labeled racial agitators? These sorts of accusations are nothing new.
For starters, the right of same sex civil marriage and all that that entails. Anti-discrimination is another.
I said as much. It certainly crossed my mind that he might be being intentionally provocative and not literal. The context in which the quote was quoted, in response to me, seems clear however, so that’s how I received it. The responsibility to provide the correct context isn’t mine, I would argue, although I am curious enough to want to follow up on Dr. Sowell’s beliefs, so thank you for the recommendation.
@Tom: Gov. Faubus called in The Arkansas National Guard to prevent the Court ordered integration of Central H.S.They facilitated the turning away of 9 Black students Ike federalized the Arkansas Guard and they were ordered to protect the 9 Black students integrating Central High.
Did you support Wallace for Prez. in 68?
@Tom:
I didn’t wax nostalgic. I said what I thought. Had Eisenhower called Faubus and told him that he expected him, as the governor to uphold the laws, I expect it would have been done. You and I both know it was grandstanding for publicity that was taking place. Like when Wallace stood in the door. As soon as the federal marshals told him he had to move, he stepped aside. He had his photo op, that’s what he wanted at the time.
#132 should be Directed to RedTeam not Tom My apologies.Wasn’t allowed to edit??
@Tom:
In the recent election, every state that requires voter ID went for Romney, every state that does not require voter ID went for Obama. Rather interesting statistic. All the voter fraud that has been found was in the Obama states. Another interesting stat.
@Richard Wheeler:
While that did happen later, initially US Army Airborne troops were sent there. After several weeks, the Nat Guard was nationalized and both regular Army and NG troops provided security for the remainder of the school year.
The real integration wasn’t accomplished through these actions though, they were accomplished through civil actions in the courts. The courts ruled against the state and the state was told that they had to operate the schools and they had to be integrated. Once that occurred, integration was accomplished. As I said, the state and governor were upholding what they thought to be states rights, but were proven wrong and they gave up the fight. It would almost certainly have occurred on approximately the same time frame if no troops had been involved. It did throughout most of the south. I know that when it occurred in my county, no troops were involved. It was basically a non event, no one was grandstanding to get elected.
@Redteam:
What makes you think that didn’t happen? Does Eishenhower strike you as the type of commander who would recklessly commit troops without at least picking up the freaking phone and making a call? There was pressure brought to bear on Faubus, both at the state and national level, and he refused to comply with the court order.
@Redteam:
You managed to get the timeline completely backwards.
@Tom:
Not sure what timeline you’re referring to. Originally, Faubus was proceeding with the court orders to integrate the school. He requested assistance from the Fed Government to make sure the students would be safe. The Federal Gov offered no assistance so Faubus sent the National guard troops there to insure their safety. Eventually the school board asked for safety assistance and that’s when the Federal troops were brought in, at the request of the school board, not to force compliance but to insure safety. read this story at this link and tell me what parts of it you might disagree with.
a quote from the article linked to in above comment:
@Tom:
While Eisenhower does not strike me as the type commander who would recklessly commit troops without picking up the freaking phone, apparently he didn’t commit troops and didn’t make a phone call, but did in fact meet personally with Faubus at Faubus’s request where Faubus asked for assistance to maintain security and Eisenhower offered no assistance.. That’s when Faubus mobilized the Guard, to provide the security.
@Redteam:
I disagree with your timeline, not the link. You stated that “initially” the Army was sent. No, Faustus sent the national Guard to bar the students initially. And then you imply that if the court order arrived sooner everything would have been honky dory, when the court order came long before it was escalated by the actions of the governor.
You are a perfect living example of the cognitive dissonance that inhabits the way so many on the right approach this subject. Like the OP, you want to embrace two mutually exclusive things. You want to distance yourself from Jim Crow and the racism of the time (it was all the ‘Dimocrats”) while offering a half-hearted nod toward Civil Rights; but there’s something within you that just won’t allow you not to offer up all sorts of weak excuses and blame shifting for the perpetrators of Jim Crow (even shifting the blame right back onto the victims!). In one paragraph you might be saying how terrible it all was, and in the next you’re telling us that it was just a misunderstanding, because those folks back then were so noble and law abiding, if someone had just rung them up on the phone and told them, “hey, segregation is wrong!” there wouldn’t have even been any need for all this Civil Rights fuss.
@Redteam: Faubus mobilized The Guard to BLOCK the entrance of the 9 Black students.
Ike Nationalized the Guard to escort and protect the students. Faubus appears to have supported the 1000+ unruly White Segregationists who beat 4 Black reporters,
Ugly–to me those 9 Black kids were heros. In spite of the turmoil the one Sr. girl graduated on time.
Did you vote for Wallace in 68?
Screaming segregationists at Central High “If y’all had just said pretty please we’d have walked away.cause we’re law abiding citizens.”
@Tom:
So basically you don’t agree with that article. Prior to any troops being there, there was a request for assistance to insure the security for the integration. It was denied. Faubus mobilized the guard for security.
I don’t remember ever meeting Jim Crow, so not sure why I would want to be distant from him, but the racism of the times was 100% Dimocrats. Did I want the schools integrated, no, but it was not something all that important to me at the time. Would I have fought a battle to delay it, absolutely not. Don’t forget Tom, I was around and living in the Deep South at the time this was happening. I know how it really was, no one has to tell me.
Don’t you think it’s interesting that Faubus went to Rhode Island to meet with Eisenhower to ask for assistance to maintain security and that Eisenhower wouldn’t agree to provide help? Or, do you want to pretend that didn’t happen?
I didn’t get the timeline wrong. I left out something, but the order of things stated are correct. After requesting Fed aid, and being refused, Faubus mobilized the guard for security. Later Faubus removed the guard. Then Ike sent Fed troops in and nationalized guard. All the troops, both Fed and guard were for security, not to prevent integration. I know you’d like to re-write history to make the Dims look innocent, but they were the source of the racism. Eisenhower was a Republican.
@Richard Wheeler:
No, voted for Nixon, Republican non-racist. I also voted for Nixon in 60, he was Republican and non-racist back then also. All this effort of you and Tom to pin the racism on the Republicans in the South is kinda ‘fruity’, isn’t it? The real racism in the country and especially in the south has always been with the Dimocrats.
appears? That’s your standard? Where do you pick that thought from? I’ve never heard it or thought it.
You have a problem with people demonstrating over causes they believe in? Ever hear of the 2nd amendment, Freedom of Speech?
how do you know they were ‘segregationists’? They may have just been hired by the local unions (as they still do) to create a situation so they can benefit some way. So far as I’ve been able to discover, the beating of the 4 reporters are the only violence that occurred and, if precedence means anything, likely someone paid to have that happen to increase the news coverage. Who’s interest would be served by more publicity on the event?
is it your thoughts that people that protest events they don’t agree with are not ‘law abiding’ citizens? Isn’t the right to protest a right of ‘law abiding’ citizens?
While casting all these stones toward the South of racism, ever hear of the Watts riots? Where did they take place? would you say racism was involved? Must have been a bunch of Republicans from Georgia imported over there just to get old Jim Crow going again. Care to defend California?
@Redteam:
That’s a very fair point. Would you care to share more insights into that time? When you think back, why were you not a supporter of the integration? Do you think your view was the common one where you lived, or were there a wide range of opinions? Did you know anyone who supported integration, or anyone who was very strongly against it and angry?
Interesting info from racist California, note RW, this happened AFTER Central High School.
Wow, 1000 troops at Central High School, 3900 in Watts, plus 934 LAPD and 718 Sheriffs officers. And about 35000 adults participated in the riots.
I’m pretty sure that racism wasn’t involved though, right RW?
@Tom:
I don’t mind sharing my recollections. Race was not a big deal in the rural county that i lived in. the county was probably about 25-35 percent black. My town of about 2000 probably had about 300 blacks. There was one black elementary school and one white. The county had 2 high schools, one white, one black. When the county was told they had to integrate, neither of the high schools were large enough to accept all the students, so they immediately started construction of a new high school to hold all the students. The first day of school there was a non-event. I don’t recall any ‘racists’ events occurring at all. I didn’t support or not support the integration, it just occurred, there were no ‘rallies’ or anything to support or not support it. The general consensus, to me, seemed that it was just another event that would happen and it did.
Until I was about 10, I lived in a very small community, about 50 whites and 50 blacks. All the children played together. I ‘stayed with’ an elderly black woman if my mother needed a baby sitter (my mother kept her grandchild occasionally also). The black children rode one bus to their school, the white children rode another bus to their school. I was too young then to wonder why. There were two stores in that community, both owned by whites but everyone bought there, equally. I joined the Navy at 17 and it was fully integrated, I never even thought about it. As I said, in many cases, racism was not a big deal in much of the south, but it certainly was in parts of it. My personal thought is that most racial incidents in the South have occurred as the result of outsiders, mostly from the North, coming there to create situations. Race baiters such as Sharpton, Jackson are in it just for the money. MLK was the ideal person to do what he did.
Richard Wheeler
what do you know about the leaders evaluating,
if it”s worth keeping the MARINES?
I THOUGHT IT WAS THE WORSE I HEARD YET,
THEY’RE LOOKING FOR MONEY, THEY WILL TAKE IT FROM THE BRAVES,
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, that’s the thinking of a person in the White House that has an objective to destroy the US Military, this proposal about the Marines is just one step along his path. It’ll never happen, thankfully the Republicans will get back in and restore sanity.