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

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.  

"State's rights" was not used by Republicans as a code word.  By then, nobody wanted to bring segregation back, so there were clearly no racist appeals in that.  Republicans were more supportive of civil rights overall, though.  Although Truman issued the executive order to desegregate the military, it was never enforced until Eisenhower became president.  And as for your last statement, that is demonstrably false.  In three of the five Southern states that Wallace carried in 1968, Humphrey beat Nixon for second.  Not exactly a resounding endorsement of the GOP by white racists, I would say.  Blacks had been voting Democrat since the 1930s in response to the New Deal, and even if non-Southern Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act more than Republicans (which isn't even fair when you include Southerners like John Tower with the other Republicans), the majority of the bill's opposition came from Democrats (that's if you include the South).  Not all Southern Democrats were racists or segregationists, and though they weren't racist because they were Democrats, they were Democrats because they were racist.
You are right about Republican gains being largely the result of anti-Communism and family values (not to mention fiscal conservatism in wealthy suburban areas of the South), and I commend you for bringing this up.  I would also like to thank you for pointing out that both parties have had their civil rights failures and succeses, because that is definitely true.  But overall, the history is much more favorable to Republicans.  
Finally, thank you so much for being civil when making your points, even if I disagree with some of them.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.  

"State's rights" was not used by Republicans as a code word.  By then, nobody wanted to bring segregation back, so there were clearly no racist appeals in that.

You do the truth no favors by pretending that "nobody wanted to bring segregation back" when there are still people who would love segregation today. After all, over 40% of Alabama voters cast a ballot in support of an interracial marriage ban as recently as 2000.

[bedstuy]

"State's rights" was not used by Republicans as a code word.  By then, nobody wanted to bring segregation back, so there were clearly no racist appeals in that.  

Reagan kicked off his campaign in 1980 in Mississippi in a town where civil rights workers had been murdered and talked about "state's rights."  Add that to his welfare queen comments and his bizarre reverence for the Waffen SS, and you have a troubling picture of President Reagan on race. 

In three of the five Southern states that Wallace carried in 1968, Humphrey beat Nixon for second.

Maybe the Humphrey voters were the blacks who were allowed to vote.  Humphrey did win 97% of the black vote. 

Blacks had been voting Democrat since the 1930s in response to the New Deal,

But, their support for Democrats increased tremendously after 1964.  In 1960, Nixon won 29% of blacks.  In 68, he won 3%.  A party that's strong on civil rights doesn't see its vote among black folks go down by 90% in an eight year period.

Not all Southern Democrats were racists or segregationists, and though they weren't racist because they were Democrats, they were Democrats because they were racist.

That's illogical on its face.  If Southerners were Democrats because they were racist, then all Southern Democrats would have to be racist. 

even if non-Southern Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act more than Republicans (which isn't even fair when you include Southerners like John Tower with the other Republicans), the majority of the bill's opposition came from Democrats

We have different theories.  My theory is that being an elected official in the Jim Crow South is an indicator of racism.  Your theory is that being a Democrat is an indicator of racism.  If you theory was correct, one would expect a higher percentage of Democrats in the north would oppose the civil rights act.  Yet, much to the contrary, outside the South, being a Democrat made you more likely to support the Civil Rights Act.  What is your explanation for that?

[Badger]

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.  

"State's rights" was not used by Republicans as a code word.  By then, nobody wanted to bring segregation back, so there were clearly no racist appeals in that.

You do the truth no favors by pretending that "nobody wanted to bring segregation back" when there are still people who would love segregation today. After all, over 40% of Alabama voters cast a ballot in support of an interracial marriage ban as recently as 2000.

And has been shown, that constituted a scintila of black voters.....and about 50% of whites.

[BaldEagle1991]

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.  

Now you know why Republicans want to cut education.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why does he devote so much time, energy and effort to post such utter drivel? He can't surely believe a word of it (no one, not even a twelve year old posting on a political forum on the internet, could be that stupid), so there must be some other purpose at work here.

[Oakvale]

Why does he devote so much time, energy and effort to post such utter drivel? He can't surely believe a word of it (no one, not even a twelve year old posting on a political forum on the internet, could be that stupid), so there must be some other purpose at work here.

On the other hand, if he really does believe the garbage he posts it makes for a really fascinating look at life inside the bubble.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

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.  

"State's rights" was not used by Republicans as a code word.  By then, nobody wanted to bring segregation back, so there were clearly no racist appeals in that.  Republicans were more supportive of civil rights overall, though.  Although Truman issued the executive order to desegregate the military, it was never enforced until Eisenhower became president.  And as for your last statement, that is demonstrably false.  In three of the five Southern states that Wallace carried in 1968, Humphrey beat Nixon for second.  Not exactly a resounding endorsement of the GOP by white racists, I would say.  Blacks had been voting Democrat since the 1930s in response to the New Deal, and even if non-Southern Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act more than Republicans (which isn't even fair when you include Southerners like John Tower with the other Republicans), the majority of the bill's opposition came from Democrats (that's if you include the South).  Not all Southern Democrats were racists or segregationists, and though they weren't racist because they were Democrats, they were Democrats because they were racist.
You are right about Republican gains being largely the result of anti-Communism and family values (not to mention fiscal conservatism in wealthy suburban areas of the South), and I commend you for bringing this up.  I would also like to thank you for pointing out that both parties have had their civil rights failures and succeses, because that is definitely true.  But overall, the history is much more favorable to Republicans.  
Finally, thank you so much for being civil when making your points, even if I disagree with some of them.

Look up Reagan's speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, and tell me it wasn't racially tinged. Then look up what the town is best known for. Yes, it's true that Humphrey beat Nixon in the Wallace states. This is because the black vote went overwhelmingly to Humphrey by a bigger margin than Wallace won the white vote. Yes, the majority of opposition outside the South still came from Democrats. This is because there were far more Democrats in the Senate.

Really, history's more favorable to the GOP? I'll give that to you if you include Lincoln and the Radicals while assuming that all Democrats were white Southern racists (which of course implies that the GOP of that time wasn't racist, which it was), but otherwise that's demonstrably false. After Hayes pulled troops out of the South and let the Redeemers take over, each Republican president paid lip service to civil rights, but none did anything until Teddy Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to the White House. Hoover actually purged blacks from state Republican parties in the South to appeal to white Southerners who were scared by Al Smith's Catholicism.

FDR admittedly did little for civil rights; he only implemented FEPC by threat from A. Philip Randolph to march on Washington. Truman, as you stated, signed the order to desegregate the military, and the Democratic Party's support of civil rights made the Dixiecrats split from the party. Eisenhower was good on civil rights (the first Republican since Teddy to be so), I'll give you that. But then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written by the incumbent Irish-American Democratic president (blacks and Irish have historically not had good relations), and signed into law by his successor, a white Southern Democrat.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.  

"State's rights" was not used by Republicans as a code word.  By then, nobody wanted to bring segregation back, so there were clearly no racist appeals in that.

You do the truth no favors by pretending that "nobody wanted to bring segregation back" when there are still people who would love segregation today. After all, over 40% of Alabama voters cast a ballot in support of an interracial marriage ban as recently as 2000.

What I mean is that no rational person would want to bring segregation back, and such a position would be political suicide today.  And that was 12 years ago; I'm sure there were plenty of people in both parties who voted against repealing the interracial marriage law.  I'm sure the majority in both parties, at least nationally, would be against banning interracial marriage.  And don't forget that Democrats always used to scare voters back in the day by telling them that Republicans would repeal those bans.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue.

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue.

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

It's not a present reality.  And nobody here may deny this history, but plenty of high-profile Democrats have and they just pretend that they were the heroes of civil rights and that all the horrible things that happened to blacks throughout our history were caused by Republicans.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue.

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

It's not a present reality.  And nobody here may deny this history, but plenty of high-profile Democrats have and they just pretend that they were the heroes of civil rights and that all the horrible things that happened to blacks throughout our history were caused by Republicans.

Who?


This guy?

[Supermariobros]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue.

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

It's not a present reality.  And nobody here may deny this history, but plenty of high-profile Democrats have and they just pretend that they were the heroes of civil rights and that all the horrible things that happened to blacks throughout our history were caused by Republicans.

I agree.

[Supermariobros]

Obviouly the GOP isint going to get mexican votes. Republicans oppose Illegals and believe in justice and Democrats strongly support Illegals and believe there better then americans. So obviously the Republicans arnt going to get latinos or blacks because there anti-illegal/anti-welfare.

[ag]

Obviouly the GOP isint going to get mexican votes. Republicans oppose Illegals and believe in justice and Democrats strongly support Illegals and believe there better then americans. So obviously the Republicans arnt going to get latinos or blacks because there anti-illegal/anti-welfare.

Why is it that the "patriotic Americans", who insist on sharing their profound thoughts with us here, are so incapable of writing even a couple of sentences in passable English? Or is that language itself one of those contemptible foreigners, who have to be fought, lest the American Justice be imperiled?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue.

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

It's not a present reality.  And nobody here may deny this history, but plenty of high-profile Democrats have and they just pretend that they were the heroes of civil rights and that all the horrible things that happened to blacks throughout our history were caused by Republicans.

I agree.

Sock.

[Sopranos Republican]

I think it's stupid to say that either party, as a whole, is racist today. The biggest reason republicans get blown out in the minority vote isn't because their racist, like has been said, it's because of their strict immigration policies with Hispanics and strict welfare policies with black people. Honestly I think the GOP could do much better with both groups, I'm for some welfare programs as long as they make sense. Seriously just as long as welfare payments only go to people who really need them and are working/trying to find work. I think some conservatives are against ANY welfare and that is really hurting their case. In regards to immigration I think some republicans could a little more understanding, just because there are some violent criminals who come across the border doesn't mean that most of them aren't good people who just want a better life. Now don't get me wrong, I believe our borders still need to be secure, but I believe it should be easier for non-violent people who just want to work and raise their family in America. My main point is that the GOP could do better with both groups without becoming just like the democrats.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue.

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

It's not a present reality.  And nobody here may deny this history, but plenty of high-profile Democrats have and they just pretend that they were the heroes of civil rights and that all the horrible things that happened to blacks throughout our history were caused by Republicans.

I'd appreciate some examples.

[Supermariobros]

Like I said before the reason Republicans dont get Latinos or Blacks isint because there racist is because.

Republicans oppose Illegals and believe in JUSTICE and support americans.

Democrats support Illegals and hate americans.

So OBVIOUSLY The GOP wont get latinos.

[Supermariobros]

Like I said before the reason Republicans dont get Latinos or Blacks isint because there racist is because.

Republicans oppose Illegals and believe in JUSTICE and support americans.

Democrats support Illegals and hate americans.

So OBVIOUSLY The GOP wont get latinos.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue.

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

It's not a present reality.  And nobody here may deny this history, but plenty of high-profile Democrats have and they just pretend that they were the heroes of civil rights and that all the horrible things that happened to blacks throughout our history were caused by Republicans.

Who?


This guy?

http://www.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=HiHWwl-8pco

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue.

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

It's not a present reality.  And nobody here may deny this history, but plenty of high-profile Democrats have and they just pretend that they were the heroes of civil rights and that all the horrible things that happened to blacks throughout our history were caused by Republicans.

Who?


This guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHWwl-8pco

That actually has nothing to do with your previous argument. [fixed your link]

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue._

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

It's not a present reality.  And nobody here may deny this history, but plenty of high-profile Democrats have and they just pretend that they were the heroes of civil rights and that all the horrible things that happened to blacks throughout our history were caused by Republicans.

Who?


This guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHWwl-8pco

That actually has nothing to do with your previous argument. [fixed your link]

This woman chairs the DNC, and she's suggesting that Republicans want to bring back Jim Crow, so it's clearly imllicit that she is projecting her party's past as the party of Jim Crow on Republicans.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue._

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

It's not a present reality.  And nobody here may deny this history, but plenty of high-profile Democrats have and they just pretend that they were the heroes of civil rights and that all the horrible things that happened to blacks throughout our history were caused by Republicans.

Who?


This guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHWwl-8pco

That actually has nothing to do with your previous argument. [fixed your link]

This woman chairs the DNC, and she's suggesting that Republicans want to bring back Jim Crow, so it's clearly imllicit that she is projecting her party's past as the party of Jim Crow on Republicans.

It's quite pathetic that you're moving the other team's goalposts.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue._

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

It's not a present reality.  And nobody here may deny this history, but plenty of high-profile Democrats have and they just pretend that they were the heroes of civil rights and that all the horrible things that happened to blacks throughout our history were caused by Republicans.

Who?


This guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHWwl-8pco

That actually has nothing to do with your previous argument. [fixed your link]

This woman chairs the DNC, and she's suggesting that Republicans want to bring back Jim Crow, so it's clearly imllicit that she is projecting her party's past as the party of Jim Crow on Republicans.

No where in this video is she suggesting that Democrats were the heroes of civil rights or that Republicans were the opponents of it as you had said.  In fact, none of what she says even hints at any of the ideals either party stood for in the past.  That wasn't the point of the metaphor.