Racism is not limited to party, on that we can certainly agree.
Does the Republican party have an “agenda” of bigotry? Certainly not a written one. Perhaps an unwritten one? Maybe an unspoken one? I think this is asking your debating opponents to prove a negative. It sets the bar too high.
I’d like to reconsider the question as: do Republicans appeal to prejudice and bigotry (slightly different things) in order to advance their agenda. I believe the answer is yes. One of the chief tools they use, and not just in the traditional South, but everywhere, is code words. Reagan was fond of throwing about the term “welfare queens” to conjure up images of fat black women with a passel of children sponging off of good working Americans.
“States rights” was used by the same crowd for many decades in support of Jim Crow laws to keep “undesirables” in their place. In the 2000 election the Confederate Naval Battle Flag (the Stars and Bars, which I’ll just call the Confederate Flag later) became a big issue, as well as the Bob Jones University speaking engagements among the Republican two contestants for the nomination. One of the candidates made a point being against both, the other for. The one in favor made the argument (through proxies) that it was a matter of “heritage”, “states rights”, “history” and “tradition”.
Bob Jones University for many years refused to admit non-whites, and now only does so with a prohibition against mixed dating. This anti-miscegenation position is nothing but racist garbage, and despicable. That any candidate would appear on this campus to appeal for votes was nothing but a blatant signal to racists that he was their man. There are other colleges in the Carolinas. There are other conservative colleges where there is no question of racism. The methods of negative campaigning between the Republican candidates in this race distinctly showed a strong desire to suck up to people with ideas of racial purity.
The next issue is the Confederate Flag. A flag, of course, is a symbol. In this case, it began as a symbol of to identify Confederate Navy vessels. Vessels battling to secede from the Union, a Union divided over the issue of slavery, a profoundly genocidal and immoral institution, and a series of failed compromises, such as the Missouri Compromise of 1850. The only real right being fought over was the right of a state to have slaves, and to not be outnumbered in the US Senate by Senators from non-slave states for fear of what might happen. After the war, the flag was adopted by the Ku Klux Klan, which became a very prominent organization in various cycles until it was recently crushed by litigation. The argument that it was a symbol of heritage of the brave men who were fighting for their own non-slave farms is a bit misleading. Yes, many Confederate soldiers were extraordinarily brave, and were in their own minds fighting to protect their homes. They didn’t have slaves. But the Stars and Bars was not the flag the very vast majority fought under. It was not the Confederate Flag, it was not the Confederate army flag. It was a Naval Battle flag. It was a beautiful design, however, symmetrical and colorful and simple. It was popularized by the KKK, not the Confederate States of America. It’s true heritage has nothing to do with brave soldiers. It is a symbol of treason, slavery, racism, defeat and hatred. Defending this flag is attacking the United States. It should be to loyal Americans what the Nazi swastika and flag are to Jews.
It is true that political campaigns are run differently depending on the region they are run in. They are exercises in marketing, and you must know the demographics. A catchphrase like “The South’s going to do it again!” may well be popular down South with “ole boys”. But there is nothing good about them. At least not to those of use who are not ignorant. Educated people understand that the “it” they are referring to is the Civil War, or as the “ole boys” like to call it: the War of Northern Aggression. And the issue fought over was slavery, and more recently, Jim Crow laws. Of course this is racist pandering, which is the commonality being appealed to.
To suggest that it is the equivalent of JFK saying Berlin is free, free people everywhere must turn their eyes toward Berlin, where the threat of communist tyranny was quite real and that “I am a Berliner” was showing solidarity, not an appeal to racist revisionism.
When in Rome (Georgia or Italy), of course you enjoy the local fruits of the grain and the vine. When in Hershey, PA, you eat chocolate, and the local version. In Dearborn, you drive a Ford, in Little Italy, you have cannoli. All politicians do this. But that is not the same as going to Munich and wrapping yourself in the Nazi party flag (which is illegal in Germany). Nor is it the same as wrapping yourself in the flag of the KKK saying it is a fine local issue.
American political parties do not require allegiance to a platform to join or retain membership, even among elected officials. You register to vote and may identify with a party. That party is stuck with you. You cannot be thrown out. We do not have a parliamentary system that gives the party any control over the conscience of its elected members. This is in sharp contrast to the parliamentary system as found in the UK for example, where it doesn’t matter what the personal opinions of the non-cabinet ministers are, and if the cabinet level ministers mouth off out of line, they are shit-canned by their sponsoring party in the coalition. In the US, the legislature is a separate branch from the executive and is a shifting coalition of 535 people with opinions, all of whom must be molly coddled.
But that doesn’t change the fact that a Democrat or Republican who panders to his/her constituents by saying he/she doesn’t like or isn’t like Hillary Clinton is a pandering scum. That is playing to people’s prejudices. Sen. Clinton is a strong, intelligent and successful woman. Saying one isn’t like Hillary is the same use of code words to suggest that equality for women is wrong, that women should be kept barefoot and pregnant. If that wasn’t the case, why wouldn’t they say they are like a Republican (or Democratic) woman they admire in the same breath? “I’m not like Hillary Clinton, I’m like Condolezza Rice or Eleanor Roosevelt.” Because it is an appeal to hatred. “You hate Hillary, and I am not like her.”
Does this constitute a Southern strategy, or is it merely pandering to get elected? I think this is a false dichotomy. Politicians will frequently do whatever they think is necessary to get elected. But not all of them trot out racist and sexist code garbage. Is this traditionally the Republican “Southern Strategy”? No, it is a tactic used by some candidates, and eschewed by others. The “Southern Strategy” as originally developed by Nixon for the Republicans was to stay silent on race issues (Wallace helped immensely here), and then when he was in office, advance civil rights causes. While Nixon was personally a bizarre racist and Anti-Semite, his public policy was anti-racist and anti-bigotry. Trent Lott could have told all the bigoted jokes he wanted if he had the votes to prove he was good for civil rights. His constant votes against civil rights did him in. Another example is Lyndon Johnson. He was a champion of civil rights on the same order as Martin Luther King, Jr., and when it came to getting civil rights passed, arguably the leading political figure in American history. But he told racist jokes that would make Strom Thurmond blush.
I remember the thread where the original poster was open to the possibility that the Republican party was bigoted, but despite protestations to the contrary, this was a rather hidden point in his posts. Liberal Democrats like me see the Republican party as the party of prejudiced old white guys for a reason. Why do we feel that the Republicans are closet bigots?
Well, their voting records. The NAACP has them on-line at: http://www.naacp.org/work/washington_bureau/107thcongress.pdf
They detail which bills and what kind of votes they had wanted, and grade the legislator strictly on that basis. Not a single Republican Senator got a rating over 48% (Spectre and Chafee), with Jeffords coming in at 76%. Scroll further down for house results. No Democratic Senator scored less than 50%. These actions speak louder than words. As far as the leading organization representing racial minority interests report card goes, the interpretation I make is clear: the Republicans are far more racist than I had thought before starting this paragraph.
This is the serious documentation you have been looking for to switch to Democrat from Republican. Honest to goodness, we do not raise taxes more, we do balance budgets, we are pro-business. I in fact am a member of my local chamber of commerce. (I am too modest, I am on the board of directors, and so are other Democrats.)