Democratic bigotry in denouncing the "Southern Strategy"

Great Debates
381

Scylla wrote:

Baloney.

My deconstruction of your analysis of Georgia politics showed just how slanted your “examination” of pandering was.

My count showed four Republican panderers, zero (out of three) Democratic panderers. If you think that means Democrats are just as likely to pander to racists as Republicans, you must be using a system of mathematics with which I am not familiar.

I imagine your other state analyses to have been equally slanted, but I don’t think it’s necessary for me to go state-by-state to prove you wrong. I think my case has been adequately made in this thread.

I will say that your efforts at coloring former SC governor (and Democrat) Jim Hodges as a crypto-racist are laughable. While the flag issue was being bandied about by the SC state legislature, Hodges offered to sign any bill that would remove the flag.

382

Spoke:

This is just getting stupid. Amazingly stupid. I didn’t analyze SC. That was the one State somebody else did.

You imagine?

You’ll recall that I thanked you for your corrections, and I mentioned that there were probably several others as well since I was just doing thumbnail searches.

You’ll recall that I wasn’t including opponents unless they showed up while I was searching the Senator or the Governor. Sonny Perdue showed up, so he got included. The other ones did not.

I was doing this all by myself (except for SC.) I explained my methodology beforehand, and I applied it consistently through all 20 or so politicians that I looked at, and I took pains to explain the shortcomings of what I was doing (as did Gadarene.) I was by no means trying to be comprehensive. I did short searches with keywords, read the results and scanned 7-8 articles for each that seemed pertinent. That’s all.

You’re attempt to try to make something of that is loathsome. I actually went to the effort to prove the allegations you couldn’t be bothered to prove.

Now you make more accusations that you don’t bother to prove.

Sparticus, you, elucidator, you get your facts wrong, you lie, and you make gratuitous accusations.

You are the kind of ugly examples of the type of politically motivated slander I created this thread to address. You prove my point for me.

383

Scylla, apologist for racism, no, you have not comprehensively responded to anything, and that is another one of your constant lies. You seem to lack the ability to think critically with respect to the serious evidence a number of people have supplied you.

Where does the NAACP state that their analysis may not be used as either the basis or part of the basis for a conclusion of racism? No where. Because your statement is flatly untrue, they don’t say it.

You have never comprehensively responded to the evidence that Republicans are either racists, appealing to racism or covering for racism, and repeatedly deny having any reponsibility to do so, despite having your ass handed to you by numerous posters coming up with hard facts proving racism. That is not only because you are a lousy debater, but because your position is untenable: Republican policy is apologism for racism when it is not flatly racist.

That you have a swift ability to fling abou the word “liar”, the phrase “I disagree”, accuse your opponents of poor reading comprehension don’t support the position that there is ample evidence of racism in the Republican party.

That Sen. Lott was sacrifically tossed out for making “inappropriate” comments that were not different than comments he had made publicly and privately on an consistent basis for the past 30 years, does not mean that Republicans aren’t racist, in which case they would have rooted him out in the early 80s. This thread demonstrates clearly to anyone not devoted to ignoring all the evidence that the Republican party hierarchy tolerates if not encourages racism, as long as it isn’t open. And the occult nature of the Republican racism adds to their evil in that they know it is wrong and encourage it anyway.

The Bush administration continues to remove regulations that are imposed to prohibit racism in government. Yet not a whimper of protest from the Republican party. It’s an embarassment to our nation around the world that in addition to all their other arrogance, Republicans are vicious closet racists.

The comments about the NAACP being a “liberal” organization fall right into that line. Simply because anti-racism is a plank doesn’t mean that liberals can, should or do own the issue of being anti-racists. But the venom that Republicans regularly spew when they mention the word liberal along with the complete disavowal of the NAACP and its agenda don’t demonstrate that the NAACP is irrelevant to the fight on racism (nor the ADL), but rather that racism as an issue is repugnant to Republicans. That many of these issues also fall upon poor people doesn’t again mean that the NAACP is a liberal organization, but rather that they recognize that racism is not merely an insult spewing past time, but that it has severe economic consequeces: ethnic minorities have a long history of economic discrimination against them in this country, and are disproprotionately poor by a long margin.

Republicans can pretend that all their positions are “principled conservative” positions all they want, but when every one of their major policy initiatives falls heavily against ethnic minorities and poor people, that speaks a hell of a lot more loudly than Trent Lott’s wistful odes to segretation.

Any educated person who takes the position that the Confederate flag is a genuine symbol or heritage, and not a symbol of hate, treason and racism, is a liar and a racist.

Any educated person who thinks that honoring BJU above other educational institutions in the state when Bush made a campaign speech there wasn’t a blatant appeal to racism and anti-Catholicism is a liar, racist and anti-Catholic. Honoring this campus as a presidential speaking stop without condeming their evil beliefs advances the prestige of this organization in the eyes of the public. As someone else (Minty I believe) pointed out, Reagan went out of his way to try to get BJU tax exempt status. The principled pandering to bigotry never ceases with Republicans.

Any educated person who thinks that a century of NAACP legislative scorecarding has nothing to do with the advancment of the interests of ethnic minorities above and beyond any collateral political gain or damage to politicians in general is a liar and a racist.

That the party of Lincoln and TR has come to this despicable crypto racism demonstrates failure.

384

Aw, is poor baby Scylla is going to go cry to one of his moderator friends now to resue him? The fact that you would think that my existence or the evidence I have offered proves your point about anything shows just how thick headed you are, and willfully racist. (At some point an apologist for racism must face the fact that they are themselves a racist.) My accusations against you are not gratituous, they are backed by your despicable behavior throughout this thread. You don’t know what you are talking about, you ignore all evidence, you call your opponents names, etc. If you want to hide your personal racism behind an academic facade of “I was just taking a position”, that is up to you, but I know better.

Moreover, this issue is actually bigger than you or I. Racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism are despicable and disgusting. This thread and a few others like it have convinced me that I was wrong about most Republican leaders not pandering to hate issues: that is clearly what is going on. Most Republican leaders running for national office do pander to racism. You have done nothing but find one weak excuse after another for this kind of behavior. The fact that you have reduced yourself to repeatedly defending this kind of hatred personal attacks on me and others rather than face the facts makes you more than deserving of responses in kind.

385

Sparticus:

I see you’ve started by calling me a racist. This should be good.

Ironic. You say I lack critical thinking skills accuse me of lying, and then your next sentence is:

Listen child. I said no such thing. Read carefully. Fire up a few brain cells, and read what I said, not what you think I said, and not what you wish you read.

You’ll find that I said no such thing. What I actually said was:

Not only are you wrong, and caught in a lie, you are caught in an incredibly stupid lie. Again.

That’s correct. I don’t support that position. Neither do lies.

Nor does it mean they are.

Thank you. This is exactly the kind of evidence of generalization and demonization that I’ve been talking about. You prove my point for me.

You think it’s not?

Every one, huh? Wow at least we’re perfect. That’s something to be proud of.

Yes, I’ve gotten the impression from you and some others, that your definition of racist is someone who disagrees with you.
As I’ve hypothesized, some kinds of people need to demonize their opponents to feel good about themselves. It’s a sad and pathetic way to live your life.

This is just getting stupid. I’m arguing with children, aren’t I?

Guess who’s a Catholic? Take a guess?

Me.

Well, I’ll give you credit for being inclusive in your condemnations.

386

Sparticus:

Again, thanks.

387

I was well aware that you were a Catholic as you’ve posted it in an number of other threads. But if you wish to excuse BJU and their anti-Catholicism in your own mind, that is your business. For some people, their wilfull blindness to their prejudices requires huge leaps of logic. That doesn’t make them any less despicable anti-Catholics. They are despicable racists.

You called virtually every opponent of yours in this thread a liar, yet have not offered any evidence to support your substantive positions. You have set yourself up as the sole abiter of what constitutes evidence, not even applying a reasonable person standard.

Racism is despicable. And I do feel that it is my duty to call you a racist. Your baiting, gratuitous insults to other posters and trolling throughout this thread more than call for it. If you have to turn tail and run after I suggested pages ago that the information providing had ended and the name calling had started, yet you still had to persist.

As a Democrat, I think that my party has not gone out on a limb enough and made an issue of our opposition’s crypto racism. We have not mentioned the racist record of Lott and Thurmond and Thompson and taken up the issue of the Confederate flag often enough or vigorously enough. Crypto racists should have to defend every pandering vote, every symbolic bow to the Grand Dragon of the KKK, such as Reagan kicking off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Miss.

I for one believe after reviewing this thread and the recent Log Cabin Reps thread that I have been entirely too polite in refraining from calling bigots and panderers of prejudice by epithets worthy of their conduct.

Scylla, you started this thread by accusing the Democratic party of being bigots, you have never offered proof except your personal opinion of me and other posters. While I am (and others may be) registered members of the party, we are not elected officials of the party, do not create policy of the party, but may support the party on a grass roots level, as I do. That does not support your accusation in the thread title, and you have never done it, either with your standard, or any reasonable person standard. What it amounts to has been a cynical attempt to turn racism charges away from your party and onto another.

Yes, its time you turned tail and checked out of this thread.

388

Yes. And your clear support of some of your party members, like Bill Clinton who like to make sweeping and gratuitous accusations of bigotry against their opponents for the shoddiest of reasons possible “at the grass roots level” exactly proves my point.

Your accusation of racism is contemptible. Your blanket condemnations are contemptible. You in fact are contemptible. Your existance, and the existance of many others like you in your party is the reason I started this thread.

Thank you again for proving my point. I knew you, or somebody like you would come through for me.

389

Because, of course, being opposed to the policies of a group is exactly the same as being prejudiced against someone for things they had no choice in. Right, Scylla?

390

Depends on the group and the policies, Grend.

I think when you demonize your opponent and attribute polices to them that they don’t necessarily have, it’s much worse.

391

Grendel:

For example take this “States rights” thing.

Some people in this Country are clearly using it with racist connotations.

The Republican party is, however, in general pretty big on States rights. We’re that way because we believe in a smaller Federal Government with powers that are limited. We think that’s good insurance against totalitarianism and that it helps preserve personal freedoms.

Democrats on the other hand tend to favor a larger Federal Government with more sweeping responsibilities and powers.

So, some have used the tactic of demonizing “states rights.” By invoking the term, or anything resembling it, one is invoking segregation, racism, or demonstrating themselves to be neo-confederates.

By making it a bad word, people are afraid of it or anything that sounds like it, and those favoring a larger government get their way. By definition they’ve tried to turn anyone who disagrees with them into a racist or a bigot.

So yes. I think that kind of manipulation is worse.

The anti-Catholics at BJU are just ignorant. They don’t worry me, or hurt my feelings. This deliberate demonization worries me, and I think it’s far worse because it takes advantage of people’s better natures. People want to be against bigotry. They want to be fair, because they are good people. Painting your opponent in false colors to take advantage of that is lower than ignorant prejudice.

And, while I pity the folks at BJU who are ignorant, I also feel sorry for them. They are being subjected to a crusade. They’re born into they’re born into their ignorance. Many if not all will realize that the old men of the previous generation who fear Catholics and racial contamination, are simply ignorant.

They’ll realize it because they’ll meet Catholics who are good people. They’ll see a friend or associate dating a black person, see them in love, and how good they are for each other, and they’ll come to the inevitable conclusion about the stupid rigidity that has been a part, and a small part of their religion. Then, it will change.

Denounce them, pronounce them racists, attack them, and you make their fears easier to hold onto. You perpetuate it.

Racism was dying. When I was in college in La, the little significance or power. It was about as important and meaningful as a Pedro’s South of the Border sticker.

But now it’s coming back, and the old divisive feelings with it. Why?

I feel strongly that a part of it is the eagerness to denounce that we’ve seen.

392

For the record, I disagree with Spartacus about the rank and file Republicans. I know many who are disgusted with the party’s coddling of the bigots within their ranks.
I do think that on an organisational level, the party need to acknowledge and repudiate the likes of Strom Thurmond rather than celebrating them.
I have no love of the Democratic party, but it seems pretty clear to me that the Republicans could prevent their playing the “race card” by not condoning racism. BJU was pretty much ignored during the presidential election because it was considered “business as usual.” Until that type of story is considered un-usual, the party does have a problem.

393

Scylla wrote:

Give a Presidential campaign speech at their campus without at least offering a gentle rebuke, and you encourage them in their bigoted views. You legitimize them in the eyes of others. And you send out a not-so-subtle message that you stand in solidarity with them.

394

You know, Scylla, the first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you have a problem.

I admire and respect the Republicans who admit that their party has a problem in this area and who seek to rectify it. I do not admire or respect Republicans who choose defensiveness and denial when confronted with examples of Republican pandering to bigotry.

Fix the problem, dammit. Don’t just help sweep it under the rug.

395

Thank you.

As well we should be. My point is simply that the Democratic party is not without its racist past, and its current racists as well. To suggest that it is strictly a Republican phenomenom, and that such coddling is the active agenda of the Republican party is simply false.

I’m no expert on Thurmond, but I was of the understanding that he strongly repudiated his past stance on segregation. He acknowledged publically that he was wrong.

I was not that his apology and repudiation had been deemed irresponsible. Certainly I admire George Wallace, the worst recent Democratic racist. After 30 years as a segregationist he repudiated his stance and was embraced (and rightfully so) for his courage in doing so.

If Strom’s repudiation was insincere, and demonstrably so, then I’d agree he shouldn’t be lionized. I am simply not aware that he wasn’t sincere.

I’m pretty sure there’s more to it than that. I don’t know BJU from a whole in the wall, but the way I figure it, is if it’s a private shcool, and their religion tells them something is wrong, they have the right to exclude it. If they fulfill a curriculum that entitles them to Federal aid, I don’t think they should be excluded from it because we think they’re being ignorant, stupid, or racist.

I think they may be being subject to a crusade, and perhaps targetted out of proportion to their offense. While I think people are stupid for thinking the Pope is the anti-Christ, and for hating Catholics, I defend their right to that belief.

BJU is also in FL. Jeb’s State. Federal aid there might be an issue to the state in general. A lot of people in Florida might think highly of BJU. They may even feel more protective of it if they feel it is being attacked gratuitously or out of proportion.

I’d speak there.

Again, I know nothing about the school other than that their brand of Christianity is against Catholics and homosexuals (or at least reportedly so,) and that they have a policy of no interracial dating. I think those three things are wrong.

I don’t know to what extent their true. It might be an almost cultish rigidity and active hatred, or these things may simply be old rules, the equivalent of “blue laws” we see in many states.

Whatever it is, I don’t automatically condemn them, but I am automatically suspicious of those that do.
I sense a general trend of this condemnation and dismissal. We name something the forbidden name and then it forever condemned along with those who are associated with it.

I think it’s a very dangerous thing.

396

How well do you know BJU?

Are they being subject to a crusade?

It certainly looks to me that Bush is being subject to a crusade for having spoken there.

Bush has admitted that he missed the opportunity to speak out against their anti-catholic and racist stance as he says he should have.

If he made a mistake, I think we agree his mistake was not addressing the issue. Since he’s apologized and acknowledged that mistake why is it still being used against him and Republicans in general.

Seriously, we’re seeing George apologize for an ommission, and Trent Lott being crucified for the straw that broke the Camel’s back.

I would think these would be good things. I think they say good things, not bad things about my party.

I think it’s hypocrisy to attack the Republican party because Lott was still around, unless and until every last Democratic racist has been purged.

Do you think they have been?

I think it’s evil to paint the Republican party as racist while these things are happening.

Turnabout is always fair play, you know?

At some point some Democrat’s gonna blow himself up in public with a racist comment.

Playing the blanket condemnation game is ignorant, and stupid.

397

Nope

398

And as a Democrat, I believe that the party can do some good for itself and the country by targeting issues of substance (i.e. those relating to jobs, wages, housing, the environment etc. that substantially affect minorities but which cross racial lines) and highlighting differences with Republicans.

Beating their chests over the Confederate flag and the praising of decaying Dixiecrats is a surefire way for the Dems to marginalize the party and cement their image as losers desperately searching for some issue, any issue that will allow them to creep back into power.
By the way, Scylla, I’ve enjoyed your impression of Casey Jones, but I believe this train derailed several pages back. :slight_smile:

399

I dare say, Jackmannii, that if you faced discrimination on a daily basis you would not belittle the support of bigotry as an “unimportant” issue.

400

Scylla wrote:

Better than you, it seems.

Bob Jones University is in South Carolina.