Since there is a lot of evidence that many of the government programs and policies supported by Democrats (welfare, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, gun control, tough business regulation, etc.) actually hurt minorities much more than others, then it could be argued that Black Republicans are actually doing much more to help Blacks than Black Democrats.
Of course, there are many who would dispute the assertions about those programs. And that’s the crux of the debate – one has to recognize that there are two schools of thought on the best way to help those in poverty. Just because someone disagrees with your way of looking at things does not mean you need to call into question his motives. brickbacon. I would venture that Black conservatives believe just as sincerely as I do that programs supported by liberals have only perpetuated and expanded poverty and the best way for government to help the poor is to reduce taxes and regulation and get out of the way while business creates jobs. You may disagree with me, but don’t question my motives.
In which way? Admittedly in the 50s and 60s it was more of an issue of jobs and school openings being given, but following that it seems to be a reasonable hypothesis.
I could see things like “Issues with the projects” or such–but that’s not a black issue, that’s an issue of situation not race. Perhaps police pulling over black people or other discrimination based on race could be considered as such, but personally I would see that as an issue of discrimination period and something that is an issue for everyone.
Politicians going about talking about black issues on either side sounds to me to have more to do with politicing than party beliefs, particularly for Republicans.
If being an intelligent black person makes you an Uncle Tom, then yes. Otherwise, no. They simply understand that its the democratic party that sows the seeds of racial strife to keep the black vote. They also understand that liberal policies pits black against white.
Southern Reps 0-1
Northern Reps 27-5
Total Reps 28-6
Total Southern regardless of party: 1-22
Total Northern regardless of party: 73-6
I realize the Senate votes don’t add up properly but that’s the best cite I could find.
It wasn’t primarily a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It was more of a regional issue. It passed due to the courage of Republican Dirksen and Democrats Mansfield and Humphrey. But without LBJ’s backing, it wouldn’t have gone through. LBJ knew that by passing this bill, he was ceding the South to the Republicans, perhaps permanently. Indeed, since the Act passed, only one Northern Democrat (Humphrey in 1968 carried Texas) has won any electoral votes in the old Confederacy. It was Democrats who had the most to lose by passing the CRA, and it was Democrats and Republicans together that passed it.
The voucher argument is weak. Opposition to vouchers is based on the principle of keeping public money in the public schools, not on any racist agenda.
The welfare remark doesn’t even warrant a response.
Blacks are not treated equally by law enforcement or the courts. Our rights are denied on a regular basis and at a disproportionate level. By equal access and treatment, I mean equal access to education, housing, etc. This is less about government intervention and more about people’s attitudes.
And there is lot of evidence to support the fact that they help. It is this evidence that the vast majority of blacks base their opinions on.
When did this solely become an issue of helping people out of poverty? I said black issues. The black community is concerned with much more than poverty eradication.
Your assumption that blacks vote democratic because the government gives them money is false.
“Issues with the projects” is a black issue? How insulting is that. And people wonder why blacks vote the way they do. Police pulling over black people is a black issue because they are pulling over more black people. Just because something is primarily a black issue doesn’t mean others shouldn’t be concerned, just that it is a bigger problem in the minds of blacks, and that it primarily or disproportionately effects blacks.
Certainly, but by that collective, you are right in there with Indians and Appalachian Whites (called “white trash” by some). I’m sure you’ve heard the one about the scalp thief and the toothless hillbilly that walked into a bar…
No, I was just citing what I believe is his common sense observation that nowadays it is the poor and politically helpless that are discriminated against, of all races.
Like it or not, conservatives, the Republican Party has a racist base which it appeals to regularly by such means as opposing affirmative action, opposing equal housing opportunities, you name it. But they NEVER publicly oppose any such programs on grounds of racism (i.e., “We’re racists, so we oppose this.”) Instead they oppose them on whatever other grounds come to hand. And they get the southern racist vote thereby and win Presidential elections, just as Johnson said they would. But I can’t think of a reason in the world to respect them for it.
I oppose affirmative action…does that make me a Republican and/or a racist? Does it make me ‘white’? Am I a ‘sell-out/Uncle Tom’, or the hispanic equivenant? Are you deliberately painting with a broad brush because you can’t wrap your mind around the fact that one need not be a racist to disagree with affirmative action? Inquiring minds want to know.
I didn’t make that assumption. I said it is a reasonable hypothesis given that many of the values black people generally hold lie closer to those of Republican.
You want to rebutt that, you’re going to have to do a bit better than “you’re wrong” in GD.
As stated I have no idea what a “black issue” is meant to be. In my knowledge black people and black families are regular people going about their lives, going to work, buying food, visitting the restroom and such.
One of the few issues I can think of that afflicts black people more often than whites is severe poverty–hence there is some chance that this may be something you are referring to with mystery phrase X.
Well if we pretend that there are people who could give two diddly squats about race, and we further imagine that those people happen to be republicans–then as said, in those people’s eyes this wouldn’t be an issue that only those guys over there with the darker skin care about. Police abusing their power with no reason is just thoroughly an issue that needs to be examined regardless of the reason.
Every (intelligent) Republican I know is concerned with getting issues solved, not to just spend a lot of time verbally caring about those issues or labelling them. Not referring to them as specifically black problems or female problems or whatever doesn’t mean that Republicans don’t care–often it just means that it never even occurs to them to think that the race or sex or whatever of the victim has anything to do with the issue. We only care about finding the bad guy and making sure it doesn’t continue to happen.
True, so then you castigate the minority of blacks that believe evidence in the other direction? If it merely comes down to how you interpret evidence, then why is one group correct in your view and the other “sell outs”?
Perhaps, but most of the issues discussed in politics on racial matters comes down to poverty. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that blacks should be able to vote, own property, and live without being lynched. There is general agreement across the political spectrum about basic civil rights issues.
So let me get this straight. If I’m white I can hold certain political views and there is little discussion of my motives for holding them. You presume that I’m a rational person, and while you may disagree with me, you will not question my motives. If I’m black and hold the identical views, however, you immediately suspect me of being self-serving and begin questioning my motives. That sounds like racism to me. You are simply judging the content of my character based on my skin color.
I don’t know why you oppose affirmative action. I know a lot of racists hate it, and the Republicans truckle to that hatred. You’re the one who knows why you oppose it.
[qupte]Belowjob2.0
What’s really funny about Republicans, like Keys when he ran in MD, is the number of white erstwhile Republicans who will abandon their party rather than vote black.
[/quote]
This one kind of flew under the radar and I have to comment. There are all sorts of good reasons for a reasonable republican to avoid voting for Alan Keyes that have nothing to do with racism, like maybe the fact he is a …(wait this isn’t the pit). Let’s just say he could spread rabies. I can think of a few Democrats i would probably cross party lines to avoid voting for. (Leiberman comes to mind)
That all said, isn’t part of what the civil rights movement was about is to let us all be individuals and vote our own conciousness? I have enough work to keep y own morality in check, I really don’t want the responsibility of defining what any other grown-up should do to deal with theirs.
On the affirmative action and racist debate – sure, racists hate affirmative action, but that does not mean there are no legitimate reasons to oppose it. Just because some unsavory people support your ideas does not invalidate those ideas. Affirmative action is wrong in my opinion, even if that means I happen to agree with David Duke. If we are going to disallow any political views that also attract scumbags then we’d be left with very few issues to discuss in this country.
It’s a fallacy to suspect that the only reason Republicans oppose affirmative action is to appeal to racists. There are numerous good reasons to oppose it. Thomas Sowell has done some excellent work on affirmative action policies around the world and he shows how they actually hurt, not help, the minority groups it is meant to benefit. Disregard that data if you want, but don’t presume that those who do want to base policies on that data are merely using it as an excuse to appeal to racists.
From what I gathered in the post of yours I was responding too, my reasons for opposing AA are moot…I must be a racist because other racists (and Republicans of course, since thats close to the same thing :dubious: ) also oppose it. A lot of racists oppose a lot of different things (the old saw about Hitler opposing alchohol and being a vegitarian springs to mind)…and I interpereted your post as saying that if THEY oppose something, and I oppose something, I must be a racist by the default. As I said, you seem to be painting with a very broad brush there.
I’m at a loss to understand how it could be argued that AA is not racist. And by AA, I am specifically refer to programs giving preference to Blacks, not the origianl form of AA which consisted solely of outreach programs.
You’re accusing the Democrates as having this as their agenda? :o
That possiblility was eliminated with the election of Ronald Reagan. What year are you living in? Most Democrats these days are moderates who recognize the need to keep taxes low and to ensure that social programs don’t foster dependancy. But public education and a social safety net are still vital, yet Republicans keep pushing further and further to the right, gutting vital programs to give tax cut after tax cut to the super-rich while running up the deficit. Resistance to right-wing extremism doesn’t make one a communist.
I almost always disagree when Dems play the race card, but these days its conservatives who are carrying victim-playing to absurd lengths. And gays remain bona-fide victims of discrimination.
And as for the “nanny state”, Republicans want to establish a “nun state” or the Southern Baptist equivalent.
The core difference between Republicans and Democrats is the belief that it is unhealthy to give people things they haven’t and specifically couldn’t earn on their own, as this just fosters a culture of moochers. Abolishing racism and anything which values people on anything outside of individual ability is an entirely different act from giving people free goods. Certainly at first, individuals who are prejudiced will continue to misbehave, but everything is going to be hard at first and–simply–any behaviour which acts too extremely against non-racist law is criminal. If the first court is also prejudiced, then you can take the case up to the Supreme Court (which had already ruled racism unconstitutional.) And indeed, it is the willingness to fight any injustice, as individuals, that is going to impress those around you that you are serious, determined, and honest–which is what will lead to them accepting you as an equal.
That there are racist people who think that racist behaviour can successfully persist in a country which honors rule-by-law and has many, many backups to insure that–simply just shows how little thought those people are putting into anything.
OK, now we’re getting somewhere. I’m not familiar with data concerning the courts, but I think we can all pretty much agree that Blacks are disproportionately the subject of arrest and/or scrutiny by cops as compared to Whites. But I propose that there is a fundamental difference between that type of problem and the problems Blacks faced during most of the 20th century.
Jim Crow laws and other government actions that were specifically designed to discriminate against Blacks were a real problem, with a real political solution-- ie, the laws themselves had to be changed. Racial profiling, to use a shorthand term, is more reflective of the overall attitudes of society, for which it is entirely unclear that a political solution exists.
But if we assume for a moment that these are problems with political solutions, is there any evidence that the Democrats are the party to back? Did the % of Blacks in the federal prison system decline during the 8 years that Clinton was in office and has it risen since Bush took over? I don’t know how to get that data, but it would be interesting to look at.