Are White Republicans More Racist Than White Democrats?

[Torie]

That is a common assertion around here. So it is good to actually find some data on the subject, as opposed to just making the assertion, claiming that it simply is a function of common sense. And the answer? Yes, but only marginally so. More than two thirds of white Pubs (more or less, depending on the question) are not. Obama's tenure ironically, has done nothing to move the ball in either party further in the right direction.

[7,052,770]

To be fair, there is almost certainly a variation of the Bradley Effect making whites im both parties appear less racist than they really are. I assert without proof that this affects white Republicans more than it affects white Democrats.

[bedstuy]

Of course. 

You can't measure racism based on survey questions.  Today, people express their racism in coded language and opinions.  Few people are going to straight up say, "I don't like black people," even if they believe it.  People express racist opinions using sanitized code words instead.

You see Republican racism in their immigration policy, their hatred of anything Arab or Muslim, their birtherism, their virulent hatred of Obama and in their media.  Look at Fox News, it's chock full of racism.  They turn black people into objects of fear whether it's New Black Panthers intimidating voters, spreading rumors of blacks looting post-Katrina or attacking hip-hop music.  Or, just look at Rush Limbaugh.  He's been the voice of the Republican Party on radio for years and he's super racist. 

[Non Swing Voter]

Probably.  Younger voters tend to have less racial animus.  Younger voters (including whites) are more likely to vote Democrat.  Older whites tend to vote Republican.  Obviously a correlation and overlap.

[Torie]

Some of the questions are designed to get behind the disingenuous mask of course. One can speculate how just how successful that attempt was, but presumably the differences between the parties (not all that great) in the numbers have some validity, even if the absolute numbers have less, and are artificially low. 

[BaconBacon96]

Yes. But that's because GOP policies attract racists, not because the GOP is entirely racist.

[Non Swing Voter]

Yes. But that's because GOP policies attract racists, not because the GOP is entirely racist.

Shouldn't the GOP have enough self-awareness to know that their policies attract degenerates and change them accordingly?  Otherwise they are what they associate with.

[BaconBacon96]

Yes. But that's because GOP policies attract racists, not because the GOP is entirely racist.

Shouldn't the GOP have enough self-awareness to know that their policies attract degenerates and change them accordingly?  Otherwise they are what they associate with.

Yeah, you would think so, but apparently not.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes. But that's because GOP policies attract racists, not because the GOP is entirely racist.

Shouldn't the GOP have enough self-awareness to know that their policies attract degenerates and change them accordingly?  Otherwise they are what they associate with.

At the risk of invoking Godwin, does that mean vegetarianism is a horrible practice because Hitler supported it? While certainly the fact that GOP policies appear to be more attractive to racists than to the overall population should give the GOP ample reason to reflect on those policies, that does not mean a priori that they are bad and must be discarded solely because of that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes. But that's because GOP policies attract racists, not because the GOP is entirely racist.

Shouldn't the GOP have enough self-awareness to know that their policies attract degenerates and change them accordingly?  Otherwise they are what they associate with.

That would be the worst form of political correctness driven policy in history. You cannot just shut down because some bad people are attracted to the table. There never would have been a New Deal or a Great Society, without the millions of likely racists Southern Democrats who voted for FDR, JFK and LBJ (even after CRA, millions overlooked it). Lincoln's coalition was composed of people largely motivated from racist reasons to vote against slavery (from seeking to cilivize them  to keeping the blacks out of the north and out of der jobs).

On immigration for instance, it would be insane to remove the only opposition to the generally accepted consensus behind repetitive amnesties, simply because some nativists and zero growthers are attracted to a campaign opposed to giving amnesty and turning a blind eye to businesses hiring illegals.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Obviously Democrats are more racist because they supported slavery 150 years ago.

[Frodo]

Given that most white Republicans are more likely than not to be southerners (and vice versa for white Democrats), that statement is probably true.  In the South (especially the Deep South), race (with few exceptions) determines which party you belong to.

[old timey villain]

Modern Racist Republicans pretend that racism doesn't exist because they think it absolves them from any guilt or blame when they make racist comments or hold racist attitudes. So when they bitch about black people on welfare, they claim they hate the "lifestyle" and not black people as a whole, all the while ignoring the history of the two races in America.

Modern Racist Democrats (and I assume we're talking about the Liz Lemon variety) like to ONLY talk about racism, especially with black people, to show how not racist they are, but in the process they proceed to show their paternalistic attitudes that assume minorities are desperate for help from rich white people.

[Marnetmar]

Yes. But that's because GOP policies attract racists, not because the GOP is entirely racist.

A pretty good portion of southern democrats were very populist on economics and not socially conservative in the sense that today's GOP is, so I don't think that's the case.

[Adam Griffin]

So when they bitch about black people on welfare, they claim they hate the "lifestyle"

"Love the sinner but hate everything about them"

[pbrower2a]

Yes. But that's because GOP policies attract racists, not because the GOP is entirely racist.

Shouldn't the GOP have enough self-awareness to know that their policies attract degenerates and change them accordingly?  Otherwise they are what they associate with.

In extremely-close elections, vile people may be the difference between winning and losing. But know well: there really are elections that must be lost. Suppose that the difference between winning and losing a referendum on gay rights depends upon getting the support of the discredited NAMBLA (an organization that exists to promote the interests of adult men who want... the rest is best left unsaid!)

Liberal democracy depends upon the assumption that there will be another election, another chance. So you lose 55-45. Well, work on winning the next election. Change the appeal, and try to win new supporters. Maybe the next time you lose 51-48. That is progress. Then you win. There are worse results than losing in a liberal democracy, one of which is to win an election and then make a fool of oneself -- or winning once for a cause and  discrediting it.

One way to discredit a cause it to connect it to loathsome people. In such a case, the negative ads practically write themselves at the next opportunity.   

 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes. But that's because GOP policies attract racists, not because the GOP is entirely racist.

Shouldn't the GOP have enough self-awareness to know that their policies attract degenerates and change them accordingly?  Otherwise they are what they associate with.

In extremely-close elections, vile people may be the difference between winning and losing. But know well: there really are elections that must be lost. Suppose that the difference between winning and losing a referendum on gay rights depends upon getting the support of the discredited NAMBLA (an organization that exists to promote the interests of adult men who want... the rest is best left unsaid!)

Liberal democracy depends upon the assumption that there will be another election, another chance. So you lose 55-45. Well, work on winning the next election. Change the appeal, and try to win new supporters. Maybe the next time you lose 51-48. That is progress. Then you win. There are worse results than losing in a liberal democracy, one of which is to win an election and then make a fool of oneself -- or winning once for a cause and  discrediting it.

One way to discredit a cause it to connect it to loathsome people. In such a case, the negative ads practically write themselves at the next opportunity.   

That would have worked out rather well for Hoover and Breckenridge and not so good for either the poor blacks in the former or the slaves in the latter.

It doesn't change the wording of language legalizing Gay Marriage if that last 10% comes from an unsavory source.

Sure you make clear you disagree on the things that are repulsive, but you don't just surrender to avoid winning as a result of such people and the opponents will connect you with them anyway.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

History is made and won by imperfect people because people in general are imperfect.