WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:37:04 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
Author Topic: WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays  (Read 25148 times)
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: November 26, 2012, 06:25:57 PM »

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP Smiley
No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.
You're the ones accepting revisionist history.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: November 27, 2012, 12:41:12 AM »

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP Smiley
No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.
You're the ones accepting revisionist history.

Mr Oldiesfreak, you may want to look up the term "revisionist." It does not mean "factual", "supported by reality", or something similar.

I mean, good god man, your main piece of evidence here was Pat Buchanan claiming the Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism. Next you'll be quoting Pol Pot to "prove" that the Democratic Kampuchea regime had nothing to do with killing people.
Logged
BaldEagle1991
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,660
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: November 27, 2012, 02:52:28 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.


Revisionist history is hogwash anyway. If you ever look up anything about the Southern strategy, it had a lot to do with appealing to white southerners upset over desegregation, so it had a lot to do with racism.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: November 27, 2012, 03:57:07 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you've invalidated your own post. If you don't think the Republican party of today is the same as the republican party in the 1920s, then you've conceded that there is no evidence for the Republican party supporting slavery and the KKK.

Unless of course, you're willing to concede that the Republican party today is the same as the one since the Civil War.
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: November 27, 2012, 04:34:18 PM »

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP Smiley
No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.
You're the ones accepting revisionist history.

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?
And do you really, honestly, believe that southern whites kept voting for Thurmond, and began voting for Helms, because they represented a party that had a greater commitment to civil rights? When both men explicitly said that they were becoming Republicans in opposition to Johnson's introduction of civil rights legislation? And that southern blacks suddenly started voting for the Democrats because they perceived the Republicans as having a stronger commitment to civil rights?
Say what you will about what you think the Southern Strategy was all about. But the evidence is clear that after 1968 black voters moved more heavily into the Democratic column, and conservative, anti-civil rights Southern white voters into the Republican column. In which case the Southern strategy was a bust, no?
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: November 27, 2012, 06:37:38 PM »

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?

Don't forget Trent Lott and Mills Godwin.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: November 27, 2012, 08:45:36 PM »
« Edited: November 27, 2012, 09:13:02 PM by Oldiesfreak1854 »

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?

Don't forget Trent Lott and Mills Godwin.
Who's Mills Goodwin?  And I don't think Trent Lott ever supported segregation.  The only evidence for that was his comment at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, and even that was taken out of context.

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP Smiley
No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.
You're the ones accepting revisionist history.

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?
And do you really, honestly, believe that southern whites kept voting for Thurmond, and began voting for Helms, because they represented a party that had a greater commitment to civil rights? When both men explicitly said that they were becoming Republicans in opposition to Johnson's introduction of civil rights legislation? And that southern blacks suddenly started voting for the Democrats because they perceived the Republicans as having a stronger commitment to civil rights?
Say what you will about what you think the Southern Strategy was all about. But the evidence is clear that after 1968 black voters moved more heavily into the Democratic column, and conservative, anti-civil rights Southern white voters into the Republican column. In which case the Southern strategy was a bust, no?
When was Jesse Helms a Democrat?  He was a Republican for his entire Senate career.  And even if all the people you cited switched to the GOP over civil rights, that still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them stayed with the Democratic Party for life.  You guys have given me four who swtiched, I know of at least eleven who didn't switch.
It wasn't until 1980 that the South started voting solidly GOP.  And blacks had been voting Democrat since the 1930s.  The theory that the Southern strategy was about pandering to racists ignores one VERY important detail: George Wallace's candidacy in 1968.  It would have made no sense for the GOP to campaign like that, since the same "conservative (for that time), anti-civil rights white Southern voters" that you talk about were solidly in Wallace's column.  Theodore White, who watched the 1968 campaign play out, even said so in his 1968 edition of The Making of the President.  Didn't you notice anything from the 1968 map on this site?  The Deep South went overwhelmingly for Wallace, and in three of the five Wallace states, Humphrey actually beat Nixon for second.  And in nearly every Southern state that Nixon did carry, Humphrey and Wallace's combined vote beat Nixon handily. Just go to the 1968 page on this site and check out the individual state totals.  The only Southern Nixon state where The combined Humphrey/Wallace vote was even close was Oklahoma, and even then it still beat Nixon's total. 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.

Revisionist history is hogwash anyway. If you ever look up anything about the Southern strategy, it had a lot to do with appealing to white southerners upset over desegregation, so it had a lot to do with racism.
Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend.  Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history are liberal Democrats, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Republicans look bad.  
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: November 27, 2012, 09:28:24 PM »

That's the logic of the conspiracy theorist, doll.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: November 27, 2012, 09:37:31 PM »

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP Smiley
No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.
You're the ones accepting revisionist history.

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?
And do you really, honestly, believe that southern whites kept voting for Thurmond, and began voting for Helms, because they represented a party that had a greater commitment to civil rights? When both men explicitly said that they were becoming Republicans in opposition to Johnson's introduction of civil rights legislation? And that southern blacks suddenly started voting for the Democrats because they perceived the Republicans as having a stronger commitment to civil rights?
Say what you will about what you think the Southern Strategy was all about. But the evidence is clear that after 1968 black voters moved more heavily into the Democratic column, and conservative, anti-civil rights Southern white voters into the Republican column. In which case the Southern strategy was a bust, no?

No.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: November 27, 2012, 09:51:47 PM »

Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend.  Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history are liberal Democrats, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Republicans look bad.  

This is the kind of logic that makes you and your party lose any credibility. People who actually know their stuff (as opposed to some random lunatic of the internet) disagree with you? They must be biased lib'rulz!!!!
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: November 27, 2012, 10:07:27 PM »

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?

Don't forget Trent Lott and Mills Godwin.
Who's Mills Goodwin?  And I don't think Trent Lott ever supported segregation.  The only evidence for that was his comment at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, and even that was taken out of context.

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP Smiley
No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.
You're the ones accepting revisionist history.

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?
And do you really, honestly, believe that southern whites kept voting for Thurmond, and began voting for Helms, because they represented a party that had a greater commitment to civil rights? When both men explicitly said that they were becoming Republicans in opposition to Johnson's introduction of civil rights legislation? And that southern blacks suddenly started voting for the Democrats because they perceived the Republicans as having a stronger commitment to civil rights?
Say what you will about what you think the Southern Strategy was all about. But the evidence is clear that after 1968 black voters moved more heavily into the Democratic column, and conservative, anti-civil rights Southern white voters into the Republican column. In which case the Southern strategy was a bust, no?
When was Jesse Helms a Democrat?  He was a Republican for his entire Senate career.  And even if all the people you cited switched to the GOP over civil rights, that still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them stayed with the Democratic Party for life.  You guys have given me four who swtiched, I know of at least eleven who didn't switch.
It wasn't until 1980 that the South started voting solidly GOP.  And blacks had been voting Democrat since the 1930s.  The theory that the Southern strategy was about pandering to racists ignores one VERY important detail: George Wallace's candidacy in 1968.  It would have made no sense for the GOP to campaign like that, since the same "conservative (for that time), anti-civil rights white Southern voters" that you talk about were solidly in Wallace's column.  Theodore White, who watched the 1968 campaign play out, even said so in his 1968 edition of The Making of the President.  Didn't you notice anything from the 1968 map on this site?  The Deep South went overwhelmingly for Wallace, and in three of the five Wallace states, Humphrey actually beat Nixon for second.  And in nearly every Southern state that Nixon did carry, Humphrey and Wallace's combined vote beat Nixon handily. Just go to the 1968 page on this site and check out the individual state totals.  The only Southern Nixon state where The combined Humphrey/Wallace vote was even close was Oklahoma, and even then it still beat Nixon's total. 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.

Revisionist history is hogwash anyway. If you ever look up anything about the Southern strategy, it had a lot to do with appealing to white southerners upset over desegregation, so it had a lot to do with racism.
Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend.  Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history are liberal Democrats, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Republicans look bad.  
Yes, of course, Wallace in 1968. But your theory of the "Southern Strategy" seems to suggest either:
a) all those racist southern whites who'd been voting for racist Democrats for decades, and then for Wallace, suddenly saw the light on civil rights in 1972, and started voting for the party that they saw as the best protector of civil rights for blacks (even though blacks themselves clearly thought otherwise), or
b) the "Southern Strategy," qua appeal to pro-civil rights southern whites, somehow had the strange effect of winning over southern whites who opposed civil rights, too, but utterly failed at winning over southern blacks.
So, which is it?
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: November 28, 2012, 12:39:04 AM »
« Edited: November 28, 2012, 08:01:49 AM by a Person »

Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend.  Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history are liberal Democrats, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Republicans look bad.  

"Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend. Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history in the West are bourgeois Westerners, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Easterners look bad. Obviously Democratic Kampuchea had nothing to do with killing people. Did you even read the Pol Pot quote I posted? Or the articles from RevLeft?"
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: November 28, 2012, 07:49:08 AM »

Oldies, what were the policies of the Southern Strategy that were meant to appeal to the racially progressive South? Was it opposition to busing? Relenting on implementing Brown v. board of Education?
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: November 28, 2012, 02:48:45 PM »

Would people please stop misusing the word "revisionist" as if it were a pejorative?  Most of what history as a discipline is is revision of previous work about topics based on new archival research, discoveries, theories, etc.  It's one of my pet peeves, and watching both Republicans and Democrats here fervently denouncing "revisionism" is like nails on a chalkboard in how wrong an understanding of what history as a discipline is.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: November 28, 2012, 05:37:27 PM »

Would people please stop misusing the word "revisionist" as if it were a pejorative?  Most of what history as a discipline is is revision of previous work about topics based on new archival research, discoveries, theories, etc.  It's one of my pet peeves, and watching both Republicans and Democrats here fervently denouncing "revisionism" is like nails on a chalkboard in how wrong an understanding of what history as a discipline is.

Sentiments shared absolutely (and absolutely predictably), but if there was ever a battle lost before it started...
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: November 28, 2012, 05:45:45 PM »

Would people please stop misusing the word "revisionist" as if it were a pejorative?  Most of what history as a discipline is is revision of previous work about topics based on new archival research, discoveries, theories, etc.  It's one of my pet peeves, and watching both Republicans and Democrats here fervently denouncing "revisionism" is like nails on a chalkboard in how wrong an understanding of what history as a discipline is.

Sentiments shared absolutely (and absolutely predictably), but if there was ever a battle lost before it started...

I think that exclusively negative sense of "revisionist" really comes from Marxism, doesn't it?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,772


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: November 28, 2012, 05:46:41 PM »

Yes, the whole "the European Dark Ages were actually a period of great enlightenment" is a prime example of revisionism.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: November 28, 2012, 07:11:20 PM »

Who's Mills Goodwin?  And I don't think Trent Lott ever supported segregation.  The only evidence for that was his comment at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, and even that was taken out of context.

Mills Godwin was a Virginia segregationist and member of the Byrd Machine who served as a Democratic Governor in the 1960s before switching parties under Nixon and being elected again.  And as for Lott,
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: November 28, 2012, 07:18:05 PM »

When was Jesse Helms a Democrat?  He was a Republican for his entire Senate career.  

He switched the year before he ran for the Senate, after his daughter pointed out that he never supported the Democratic candidates.  Jesus Christ, learn some basic history before you take such moronic positions.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: November 28, 2012, 09:15:21 PM »
« Edited: November 28, 2012, 09:22:06 PM by Oldiesfreak1854 »

Yes, of course, Wallace in 1968. But your theory of the "Southern Strategy" seems to suggest either:
a) all those racist southern whites who'd been voting for racist Democrats for decades, and then for Wallace, suddenly saw the light on civil rights in 1972, and started voting for the party that they saw as the best protector of civil rights for blacks (even though blacks themselves clearly thought otherwise), or
b) the "Southern Strategy," qua appeal to pro-civil rights southern whites, somehow had the strange effect of winning over southern whites who opposed civil rights, too, but utterly failed at winning over southern blacks.
So, which is it?
Oldies, what were the policies of the Southern Strategy that were meant to appeal to the racially progressive South? Was it opposition to busing? Relenting on implementing Brown v. board of Education?
The answer to both your questions is neither.  It wasn't like white racists suddenly had an about-face on civil rights.  It was meant to convince Southerners who already supported civil rights (many of whom had relocated from more "racially progressive" parts of the country) that Republicans were more in their best interest on those issues than the segregationists in the Democratic Party.  Nixon raised the civil rights enforcement budget by 800%, raised the percentage of desegregated Southern schools from 10% to 70%, and appointed more blacks to his administration than any of his predecessors, including Johnson.  In his first inaugural address, Nixon said the following:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116945

First, does this sound like someone who wanted to pander to white racists?  And second, if the South was shifting toward Republicans because of race, it would seem that it would stop once Nixon began implementing the above civil rights policies, and certainly after racial issues had been taken off the table.  But not only did it not stop, it got stronger.  The South hasn't really been voting solidly Republican since 1972; remember that Carter carried almost the entire South in 1976.  And Nixon's strength in the South in 1972 was largely because McGovern was too liberal for America as a whole, but especially the South, on so many other issues (like Vietnam); after all, Nixon carried everything except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.  It wasn't until 1980 that the South, at least the Deep South, started to become solidly GOP in presidential elections.  And that's not just me saying that; one of my PoliSci professors said the same thing.  And if you take a look at some of the maps on this site, you'll see that it's true.  Even in the 90s, Bill Clinton was making inroads in the South.  And the shift had started before the 60s, primarily in wealthy suburban areas as a response to the fiscal conservatism of most Republicans. 

Who's Mills Goodwin?  And I don't think Trent Lott ever supported segregation.  The only evidence for that was his comment at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, and even that was taken out of context.

Mills Godwin was a Virginia segregationist and member of the Byrd Machine who served as a Democratic Governor in the 1960s before switching parties under Nixon and being elected again.  And as for Lott,
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html
From what I know about Trent Lott and read about Mills Godwin after you posted this, it doesn't seem like either one switched parties because of race, but rather for political expediency.  And considering that Time is one of the most liberal magazines in America, I really can't help but doubt the accuracy of that.
 
"Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend. Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history in the West are bourgeois Westerners, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Easterners look bad. Obviously Democratic Kampuchea had nothing to do with killing people. Did you even read the Pol Pot quote I posted? Or the articles from RevLeft?"
This is the kind of logic that makes you and your party lose any credibility. People who actually know their stuff (as opposed to some random lunatic of the internet) disagree with you? They must be biased lib'rulz!!!!
You guys complained about my sources having a right-wing bias, so why do you now complain when I point out the left-wing bias of public education?  And I am not just some random lunatic on the Internet.  I've researched this stuff, and although I will continue to do so, I don't see how your evidence proves your point in real life.  And of course the consensus can be wrong.  For example, if everyone, even those who "know their stuff" insist that 2+2=7, would you believe it simply because they said so?  Since 2+2=4, the consensus would clearly be wrong here.

Finally, before I finish this post, let me ask you this: what makes you think that Repulicans would go from voting over 80% in favor of civil rights in 1964 to pandering to bigots just four years later?

I don't necessarily want to change your mind (and I know I won't), but I want you to at least consider this.
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: November 28, 2012, 11:04:53 PM »

Yes, of course, Wallace in 1968. But your theory of the "Southern Strategy" seems to suggest either:
a) all those racist southern whites who'd been voting for racist Democrats for decades, and then for Wallace, suddenly saw the light on civil rights in 1972, and started voting for the party that they saw as the best protector of civil rights for blacks (even though blacks themselves clearly thought otherwise), or
b) the "Southern Strategy," qua appeal to pro-civil rights southern whites, somehow had the strange effect of winning over southern whites who opposed civil rights, too, but utterly failed at winning over southern blacks.
So, which is it?
Oldies, what were the policies of the Southern Strategy that were meant to appeal to the racially progressive South? Was it opposition to busing? Relenting on implementing Brown v. board of Education?
The answer to both your questions is neither.  It wasn't like white racists suddenly had an about-face on civil rights.  It was meant to convince Southerners who already supported civil rights (many of whom had relocated from more "racially progressive" parts of the country) that Republicans were more in their best interest on those issues than the segregationists in the Democratic Party.  Nixon raised the civil rights enforcement budget by 800%, raised the percentage of desegregated Southern schools from 10% to 70%, and appointed more blacks to his administration than any of his predecessors, including Johnson.  In his first inaugural address, Nixon said the following:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116945

First, does this sound like someone who wanted to pander to white racists?  And second, if the South was shifting toward Republicans because of race, it would seem that it would stop once Nixon began implementing the above civil rights policies, and certainly after racial issues had been taken off the table.  But not only did it not stop, it got stronger.  The South hasn't really been voting solidly Republican since 1972; remember that Carter carried almost the entire South in 1976.  And Nixon's strength in the South in 1972 was largely because McGovern was too liberal for America as a whole, but especially the South, on so many other issues (like Vietnam); after all, Nixon carried everything except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.  It wasn't until 1980 that the South, at least the Deep South, started to become solidly GOP in presidential elections.  And that's not just me saying that; one of my PoliSci professors said the same thing.  And if you take a look at some of the maps on this site, you'll see that it's true.  Even in the 90s, Bill Clinton was making inroads in the South.  And the shift had started before the 60s, primarily in wealthy suburban areas as a response to the fiscal conservatism of most Republicans. 

Who's Mills Goodwin?  And I don't think Trent Lott ever supported segregation.  The only evidence for that was his comment at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, and even that was taken out of context.

Mills Godwin was a Virginia segregationist and member of the Byrd Machine who served as a Democratic Governor in the 1960s before switching parties under Nixon and being elected again.  And as for Lott,
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html
From what I know about Trent Lott and read about Mills Godwin after you posted this, it doesn't seem like either one switched parties because of race, but rather for political expediency.  And considering that Time is one of the most liberal magazines in America, I really can't help but doubt the accuracy of that.
 
"Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend. Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history in the West are bourgeois Westerners, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Easterners look bad. Obviously Democratic Kampuchea had nothing to do with killing people. Did you even read the Pol Pot quote I posted? Or the articles from RevLeft?"
This is the kind of logic that makes you and your party lose any credibility. People who actually know their stuff (as opposed to some random lunatic of the internet) disagree with you? They must be biased lib'rulz!!!!
You guys complained about my sources having a right-wing bias, so why do you now complain when I point out the left-wing bias of public education?  And I am not just some random lunatic on the Internet.  I've researched this stuff, and although I will continue to do so, I don't see how your evidence proves your point in real life.  And of course the consensus can be wrong.  For example, if everyone, even those who "know their stuff" insist that 2+2=7, would you believe it simply because they said so?  Since 2+2=4, the consensus would clearly be wrong here.

Finally, before I finish this post, let me ask you this: what makes you think that Repulicans would go from voting over 80% in favor of civil rights in 1964 to pandering to bigots just four years later?

I don't necessarily want to change your mind (and I know I won't), but I want you to at least consider this.

Well, you might want to consider why the party that was eagerly courting liberal Southern whites was also eagerly courting Strom Thurmond, who switched parties to support Goldwater in 1964, and whom (according to Robert Novak, anyhow) Nixon was so eager to keep onside that he let Thurmond choose his veep for him:
http://patterico.com/2007/08/23/another-novak-anecdote-the-man-who-gave-us-nixon/

Surely if the "Southern Strategy" was about appealing to pro-civil rights Southerners, the first thing they would have done would have been to throw Thurmond under the bus.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: November 28, 2012, 11:14:45 PM »

From what I know about Trent Lott and read about Mills Godwin after you posted this, it doesn't seem like either one switched parties because of race, but rather for political expediency.  And considering that Time is one of the most liberal magazines in America, I really can't help but doubt the accuracy of that.

Seriously?  Can you really not connect the dots?  And Time was quoting someone, so don't BS about Time being liberal.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: November 29, 2012, 11:55:55 AM »

From what I know about Trent Lott and read about Mills Godwin after you posted this, it doesn't seem like either one switched parties because of race, but rather for political expediency.
And why, Mr Oldiesfreak, was switching parties expedient?
 
"Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend. Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history in the West are bourgeois Westerners, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Easterners look bad. Obviously Democratic Kampuchea had nothing to do with killing people. Did you even read the Pol Pot quote I posted? Or the articles from RevLeft?"
This is the kind of logic that makes you and your party lose any credibility. People who actually know their stuff (as opposed to some random lunatic of the internet) disagree with you? They must be biased lib'rulz!!!!
You guys complained about my sources having a right-wing bias, so why do you now complain when I point out the left-wing bias of public education?
Please explain the difference between using a Pat Buchanan quote and National Review articles to 'prove' that the Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism and using a Pol Pot quote and RevLeft posts to 'prove' that the Khmer Rouge regime had nothing to do with killing people.
After you have done that, please source your claim on public education having a left-wing bias.

 And of course the consensus can be wrong.  For example, if everyone, even those who "know their stuff" insist that 2+2=7, would you believe it simply because they said so?  Since 2+2=4, the consensus would clearly be wrong here.
You know, an actual example of the consensus being wrong (there are plenty) would have been much more helpful than this absurd comparison.


Finally, before I finish this post, let me ask you this: what makes you think that Repulicans would go from voting over 80% in favor of civil rights in 1964 to pandering to bigots just four years later?

[facehoof]
If Southern white racists joined the party between '64 and '68, were the Republicans the same group of people?
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: November 29, 2012, 02:48:45 PM »

Well, you might want to consider why the party that was eagerly courting liberal Southern whites was also eagerly courting Strom Thurmond, who switched parties to support Goldwater in 1964, and whom (according to Robert Novak, anyhow) Nixon was so eager to keep onside that he let Thurmond choose his veep for him:http://patterico.com/2007/08/23/another-novak-anecdote-the-man-who-gave-us-nixon/

Surely if the "Southern Strategy" was about appealing to pro-civil rights Southerners, the first thing they would have done would have been to throw Thurmond under the bus.
Actually, that explanation is easy: Agnew, Nixon's running mate in 1968 (and then Vice President, of course) was actually a strong supporter of civil rights.  As governor of Maryland, Agnew helped pass the first open-housing law south of the Mason-Dixon line and also helped repeal Maryland's centuries-old law against interracial marriage.  (Sources: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/9318/Spiro-T-Agnew)
He was anti-violence, not anti-civil rights.  And not only that, but he actually defeated a segregationist Democrat, George Mahoney, when he was elected governor of Maryland in 1966. Mahoney's slogan in that campaign was "Your home is your castle--protect it," which many considered a slogan aimed at opposing open housing. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/21/obituaries/george-mahoney-87-maryland-candidate.html)

From what I know about Trent Lott and read about Mills Godwin after you posted this, it doesn't seem like either one switched parties because of race, but rather for political expediency.  And considering that Time is one of the most liberal magazines in America, I really can't help but doubt the accuracy of that.

Seriously?  Can you really not connect the dots?  And Time was quoting someone, so don't BS about Time being liberal.
And why, Mr Oldiesfreak, was switching parties expedient?
It was expedient because the Democratic Party at that time was so weak in those states as the result of the split among Southern Democrats over civil rights (not to mention other issues) that Wallace capitalized on in 1968, which arguably ensured Nixon's election.  To paraphrase Bill Clinton, they were trying to get elected, and they couldn't do it as Democrats.  Just to prove my point, Upton Sinclair did the same thing when he ran for governor of California in 1934; although he was a member of the Socialist Party, he registered as a Democrat and ran as a Democrat becasue he knew he stood no chance of winning as a Socialist.
Please explain the difference between using a Pat Buchanan quote and National Review articles to 'prove' that the Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism and using a Pol Pot quote and RevLeft posts to 'prove' that the Khmer Rouge regime had nothing to do with killing people.
After you have done that, please source your claim on public education having a left-wing bias.
First, please explain to me the difference between using quotes from a Time article and other left-wing sources to prove that the Southern strategy was race-based and using those same sources you mentioned to prove that the Khmer Rouge wasn't about killing people.  And as for liberal bias in public education, even the New York Times has admitted that the overwhelming majority of college professors identify as liberals.  Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal-2.html

If this is true, then what makes you think that some of their biases won't inevitably seep in, even if they are trying to be objective?
[facehoof]
If Southern white racists joined the party between '64 and '68, were the Republicans the same group of people?
Southern white racists did not join the party between 1964 and 1968.  They may have voted for Goldwater in 1964, but after that, they went right back to voting Democrat, as evidenced by George Wallace running in 1968 (albeit as an Independent) and candidates like George Mahoney, Herman Talmadge, and Lester Maddox.  You seem like a smart guy; does being a member of one party and voting for one candidate of the opposing party suddenly make you a member of that person's party?  For example, let's say that there was a Democrat running for office that I thought better represented my views than his/her Republican opponent, and I voted for that Democrat once.  Does that mean that I, someone who has identified as a loyal and committed Republican for nearly all of my (short) life to this point, have suddenly become a Democrat?  Of course not.  For that matter, Wallace may have run as an Independent in 1968, but when he ran for president again in 1972, he did it as a Democrat.  And when he ran for governor of Alabama again in 1970 (still before he had a change of heart on race), he ran as a Democrat.  And after the assassination attempt, when he was elected to his last two terms as governor in 1974 and 1982, he won both those times as a Democrat.  He was a Democrat for life, both before and after the assassination attempt that made him reconsider his views on race.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: November 29, 2012, 03:35:01 PM »

Southern white racists did not join the party between 1964 and 1968.  They may have voted for Goldwater in 1964, but after that, they went right back to voting Democrat, as evidenced by George Wallace running in 1968 (albeit as an Independent) and candidates like George Mahoney, Herman Talmadge, and Lester Maddox.  You seem like a smart guy; does being a member of one party and voting for one candidate of the opposing party suddenly make you a member of that person's party? 

Obviously, it's more complicated than one party was racist or the other party was racist.  Basically, the white establishment in the South was historically part of the Democratic party and they were historically racist.  But, they weren't racist because they were Democrats.   

Outside the South during the 50s-70s, the Democrats were more supportive of civil rights than Republicans.  If you take out the South, a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the civil rights act in Congress. Or look at Harry Truman desegregating the military.  Or just look at the black vote during this time.  Democrats won the black vote for President every time by a large margin.

Post 1972, direct appeals to racism and segregation were a net negative for politicians at the national level.  Neither party was going to repeal the civil rights act, segregation was over as a political issue.  Racism still existed though.  Republicans made inroads with white votes in the South during the 70s-90s mainly by playing up morals/family values issues and anti-Communism.  However, some Republicans also used racist appeals and talked about "state's rights."  Not a huge percentage of racist whites changed their registration to Republicans.  But, the gains Republicans made in the South were among the white racist establishment and not blacks, the Wallace voters, not the Humphrey voters. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.128 seconds with 13 queries.