How about 2 or 20 years ago?
From part one of the report I linked to previously:
If W’s campaign marked the end of this strategy, presumably there are still people in office who ran using this (and assuming that the strategy has come to an end at any level of office). Please read up on this.
The 2002 GA governor’s race. Dubya’s 2000 primary campaign (Bob Jones and the SC Confederate flag flap). Trent Lott’s general fellating of the Council of Conservative Citizens, back before he got caught at it a few years ago. Those are just off the top of my head. Others will be along to provide further examples.
Unclear whether it’s still a part of the national strategy. It is certainly a strategy in some individual races.
Scylla:
“Preponderance” means < 50%. My claim is “too many.” Surely, you would not tolerate “too many” campaigns that appeal to bigots, so long as it’s less than half?
Thing is, this is all very subtle (well, except for Barr and Lott, who were right up front with their flirtations with the CCC). You want cites to coded messages? Not easy to do for the very reason that the remarks are not overtly racist. It might be something as small as a sneering reference to the NAACP or “those folks down in Atlanta,” made before an all-white audience. Or maybe a reference to states’ rights, or an endorsement of school vouchers (understood by many to be a means of re-segregating schools).
Those of us who live in the South have seen this stuff for years. Sorry we didn’t make notes every time it happened.
I’ve provided info on some of the recent examples of the more blatant pandering in my state. More subtle stuff goes unreported.
The NAACP is the only organizatin I know of that reports this kind of information with respect to race. Most lobby groups do this. They have done it since 1914. I don’t have links to previous years.
If some people want to say that the NAACP is a front for the Democrats, they are welcome to it. A few years back there was the issue of extending the voting rights act of 1964. Mr. Lott voted against extending it. This is the law that requires states to make voting available to black people. This was the vote that outraged the black community with respect to Lott. But keep in mind that it was Karl Rove that in the end refused the necessary support to Lott, and for reasons of general leadership, not race. The White House has been disappointed in Lott for quite some time.
The NAACP scores are dependent in any given year on the bills that they choose to lobby about, but with that caveat in mind, the scores are not subject to fudging. While I suppose that the argument can be made that some of these are not directly related to race, substituting the political judgment that they are just anti-conservative positions is a circular argument. The NAACP takes its positions not out of political purity for a philosophy, but rather to advance the interests of their constituents.
I looked closely at the bills for the Senate (not the House), and they were about funding programs for schools, scholarships and basics.
**I agree, it is. I don’t see it as a Republican keystone , however, as some do.
Of course it means something. However, I don’t think it means that Republicans have an agenda of bigotry or even that they are perceived as having said agenda. If it says anything, to me, it says that blacks view the Democratic platform as being more beneficial to them and more representative of their views. What do you, specifically, think it means Sofa King?
Grim
While I do think the NAACP scores are important for the purpose of showing hard numbers, the flag flap, the Florida voting purge and the Bob Jones speaking engagement create a clear picture of actions and where the heart is in some Republican leaders. I am well aware that the rank and file does not consider itself racist. I am well aware that the leaders and TV pundits don’t consider themselves or their party racist, but rather nobly conservative. Personally, before I began participating in this thread yesterday, I had considered some of the Republican leaders to be innocent of the charge of racism. But my review of the facts disgusts me. Every Republican Senator an F. Every Republican Congressman an F except for one D. The Democrats had their share of Cs and Ds, and one F (Trafficant).
Minty:
Yeah. Ok. Whatever. Lots not mince words any more. Let’s see rigorous methodical support of your contention.
Hentor:
If the strategy exists you should be able to demonstrate a pattern. Show it.
Spoke:
I’m not crazy about everything the NAACP does. Disparaging them doesn’t make me a racist.
Sparticus:
You didn’t look closely enough.
John Aschcroft confirmation
predatory Lending
I read them carefully, and listed the ones that may pertain to racial issues. If you disagree be specific, please.
I don’t recall a chorus of condemnations coming from Republicans when Barr’s flirtation with the CCC was revealed. Do you? The silence was and is deafening. That silence also sends a message.
Sparticus:
The NAACP is a pretty liberal organization. I am not surprised that Democrats vote more in line with it’s stance than Republicans.
The NAACP is not so foolish as to suggest that it’s scorecard shows anything but agreement with the NAACP stances on various pieces of legislation.
I don’t see how you construe bigotry from simple disagreement with the NAACP.
For example I disagree with the NAACPs position on #s
1,7,8,11,12,13,14,15,16,21,22,24,25,30,31,33
(that’s a guess from reading the quick summaries)
That would make me an “F” I guess, according the the NAACP. Does that mean I’m a bigot?
How about some ways that we can tell that the remarks are intended to convey racist messages? Reasons, in other words, that taking offense at stuff like “niggardly” is not what you are really talking about.
Regards,
Shodan
What you are doing is bringing up individual instances that might be considered as a sign of racism in individuals.
This is not useful.
I want to see the generalizations backed up with systematic evidence.
For example "During the midterm elections, 8-10 of the the campaigns in the south showed strong indications of racist pandering among Republicans, compared to 2-10 for Democrats.
Here are links to the incidences of racist panderings."
Something along those lines would be useful.
What you are doing is not.
You have evidence of the explicit southern strategy developed by Republicans, backed up by voting records, and illustrated by individual instances. I am not sure what it really is that you need - the type of analysis that you have laid out is really not feasible. You need, in your hypothetical, 20 complete records of campaign material to know whether or not any “strong indications of racist pandering” were shown. Why start a thread asking questions if you don’t want to hear the answers. I suggest that people here have put up - do with that as you will (or, in all likelihood, won’t). Clearly you aren’t going to think about it.
I don’t recall it either way, to tell you the truth, any more than I recall the Democrats’ universal outrage over Robert Byrd’s racist past. But it’s still beside the point raised by the OP. I’m finding it fascinating how this thread is being answered. BTW, I’m a registered Democrat, lest this seem partisan.
**Where is the evidence of a current explicit Republican strategy? What are the voting records you reference? Individual instances are already conceded, I believe.
This is interesting.
Ronald Reagan and racial pandering.
Scylla: You asked for specific examples, and I gave them to you. Now you want systematic studies? Like I said, this stuff is subtle. It doesn’t get catalogued. Only the more blatant examples like those I’ve mentioned get attention in the press. So if you’re looking for a detailed study of the problem, to my knowledge it hasn’t been done. Those of us who live in the South see this stuff constantly.
But hey, live in denial on this subject if you like. Just don’t expect to draw black voters to the Republican Party until this crap stops.
Bob Cos, following the Bob Barr incident Democrats in the House sought a vote on a resolution condemning the racist rhetoric of the CCC. Republicans blocked the vote.
How many more examples would satisfy you, Scylla, and from what time period? I just want to lock you down so as to foreclose your inevitable complaint that all our examples don’t prove anything.
Spoke:
That’s an opinion piece, and I strongly disagree.
Barry Goldwater a racist?
This is the guy that integrated the armed services. He’s a civil rights hero from back before there was a civil rights movement.
The contention that Reagan said something in 1981 that smells funny is not particularly germaine either.
You say that down here in the South you people think Republicans smell funny. It’s subtle, and it can’t be defined.
Well, if you can’t categorize it, or define it, than it’s useless for proving a point. A “funny feeling” does not constitute proof.
Hentor:
I’ve asked a specific question. You don’t want to answer it. You need to answer that question to support the contention that the republican party has an agenda of pandering to racism.
Well, Huckleberry. It seems to me that if you can’t support your statement than you have no business making it.
Racial pandering is a serious accusation. What kind of sleaze makes the accusation without proof?
At this point you may recall that I presented a rational as to why.
Some Democrats want to portray Republicans as racist to protect their black voting block.
Spoke’s link to the Ronald Reagan article is excellent evidence to support that that’s what’s going on.
Otherwise how is it any more germaine to today’s Republican party what Goldwater did than it is germaine to the Democratic party what Al Gore’s dad did?
The only reason to bring this crap up is to cast aspersions.
There is no backing up of what is being said, because it’s moot as to whether it’s true or not. Those democrats making the accusations aren’t interested in the truth of their allegations. They’re interested in the value the accusation has by itself.
I find it cynical and disgusting.
You wanted hard facts and numbers to go on, I gave you the best there are. Does that make you a bigot? I report, you decide. But don’t let your decision rest on the circular argument that you agree with Republican positions, you are not a bigot, and therefore Republicans are not bigots (and again, we conflate bigotry with prejudice here.) Was Trent Lott a bigot? Absolutely. Was he sending a coded message at the birthday party? Absolutely. He’d been caught on tape three times. He must have said crap like that off tape quite a bit. And his voting record speaks volumes. Is this the same thing as Sheriff Clark beating protesters back in the 60s? No. But the statements and the voting record are both big FUs the sort of people who are the victims of predatory lending practices. (Which, incidentally, there are not enough laws preventing.)
It is one thing to take the libertarian point of view that people should be allowed to borrow money through “predatory lending practices” if they would like and the government needn’t get involved. The real world is another matter where an elderly person loses their home because some scum convinced them to borrow a few thousand dollars at 16 percent with 13 points. (Yes, this does happen. More frequently than you might think.)
Cast aside the “coded messages” I’ve been hearing for years, address the tax relief more weighted to working people and corporations. stop trying to establish fundamentalist Christianity as the national religion and let women manage their own bodies, and there isn’t much of a difference between the two parties. But that is a huge gulf. We decide which party (if any) we identify with based on a clustering of issues and attitudes.
I suppose you could go back in history and find a darn near infinite example in both parties.
I think I’ve made it pretty clear that individual examples are not what I want. No number of individual examples will satisfy me, because individual examples do not tell support the larger generalizations.
I’ve offered several methodologies for proving your point, if you wish to. I’ve expressed the criteria that I’m looking for.
This is generous because I’m not the one making the assertion. I’m not the one that has to prove it. You do.
I’ve even given an example of a valid supporting argument.
The only person that actually made an effort to provide some kind of systematic or rational basis is Sparticus. Though it was flawed and doesn’t show what he says it does, I respect the effort and treated it seriously, because it was a piece of debatable data, useful for making generalizations about Republican stances on various issues.
Anecdotes about Nixon aren’t useful at all.