Of course.
Some people like to make up stuff and lie, and resent being called on for it.
It must be very frustrating to be caught making unsupportable lies and generalizations.
Scylla: I don’t wish to argue historic racism and pandering in either party.
Fine, but I think the point being made here is that the historic “pandering to racism” strategy among Republicans persisted a lot longer than it did among Democrats—up to the very recent past in some cases. Consider not just Lott, but the instances discussed here about the Reagan “states’ rights” speech, campaigns in the 1990’s, the association of prominent national Republicans like Ashcroft, Lott, and Barr with neo-Confederate or “white rights” supporters like Southern Partisan or the Council of Conservative Citizens.
You’re demanding evidence that that pandering has persisted all the way up to right now in 2002, and if you don’t get that evidence, you’re going to call people hypocrites or bigots if they complain about the past alliances between Republicans and racists. Well, I don’t think you’re going to see that evidence, or not much of it anyway, because as I said, I think the “Southern Strategy” is pretty much dead.
But I think that its repercussions will be with us for a long time, both among minorities—especially black—who overwhelmingly mistrust Republicans on racial issues, and among racist whites who still feel that the Republicans ought to be their party. In the circumstances, I think it’s naive to say that it’s only what most Republicans are doing right now that matters. An entire political party can’t wipe away its embarrassing past in just a few years.
If you want to say that nobody ought to be calling the Republicans of today racists or racist-sympathizers without specific proof, though, I’m with you. I’m just reminding you that that image will inevitably linger, and will require explicit declarations of support for civil rights and racial equality/integration from just about all prominent Republicans before it can be truly eradicated. And that will mean cold-shouldering all this neo-Confederacy stuff.
Scylla
The existence of a Southern strategy in the Republican party in the past is important as that is the basis of much of the allegations. You still have not denied or accepted its existence. From a (neutral) cynical standpoint, I am willing to agree that the Democrats may have employed the opposite of the Southern strategy, which as you pointed out is indeed pandering going the other way.
Only, given the history of the nation and treatment of minorities, pandering towards blacks was IMHO morally less repugnant, and one must also consider that many could have been sincerely committed to it too. (As I said before it is hard to distinguish one’s morality from political expediency)
The existence of a Southern strategy in the past implies that your OP can be interpreted to mean: “Does such a strategy still exist?” which is what I believe Kimstu finds to be a more relevant question.
But, even if the party has disavowed this strategy which is highly likely given Bush 43’s campaign, you cannot deny that there will be echoes reverberating for a while. These echoes could very well include certain members of the party indulging in watered down versions of pandering and I really don’t see how one can systematically verify this without a time-consuming study of many election campaigns.
Scylla, you’ve gotten several examples of racist -specifically, anti-black – behavior by high-profile Republicans. I want to throw the ball back in your court:
can you find an equal number of examples of anti-black racism by high-profile Democrats within the same time period (i.e., the last 20 years)?
If not, will you admit the very narrow assertion that, based on the evidence offered here, the Republican party seems to contain more anti-black behavior in the last 20 years than the Democratic party?
If not, why not?
This is a huge topic, and I think we do best by taking it baby steps at a time. Let’s deal with this narrow assertion, and then we can broaden or refine it.
Daniel
First, I want to affirm Minty to Airman, please do not slink, here or anywhere else. It is the he who is a better man today than he was yesterday who is to be admired, any common mediocrity can be luke-warm good and remain so. Why, I myself once thought Carrot Top was funny. True, I was drunk at the time, but still…
That said, I’m really sorry I missed so much of this, wasting time at work and all. Seems all the really good points have already been taken by MG, Gadarene, Kimstu, and others.
Still, I think Scylla quite misses the point. It is precisely because the racism of the “Southern strategy” was implied and not explicit that made it so insidious. The practitioners of this strategem wouldn’t dare be explicitly racist. Indeed, even in the South or my native Texas, there are fewer and fewer actual racists to pander to. Hence, the timing of the abandonment of that strategy. To set the standard as being explicit proof of racism is nonsensical, its like defending a charge of robbery by insisting on proof of murder.
Further, claiming the Democrats are “exploiting racism” is a tad disingenuous. The Dems are proud of thier record of opposition to racism, and justly so. They paid the cost when that opposition was not as widely popular as it is now, they have every right to whatever lingering good will may result. After all, if they are “exploiting” anything, they are exploiting thier historical adherence to a worthy cause, whereas the “Southern strategy” sought to covertly exploit an unworthy, even reprehensible, cause.
Case in point: Trent Lott’s opposition to the MLK holday. He couched his objections as being economic in nature, another national holiday was too expensive. Was anybody fooled by that? Futher, he was pleased to imply that there were others “more worthy”, though he did not make the blunder of specifying who they might be. Now, if his objection was entirely a matter of economics, was he not free to suggest some other honor? A statue by the Lincoln Memorial, mayhap? Yet he did not. Opposing the holiday without offering an alternative was precisely the desired message: it suggested to the racist that Trent did not think MLK worthy of great honor, without stating any explicit disdain. Nuance and innuendo.
Lying and racism being, like, soooooo equivalent.
Scylla:
Day-um. You’re actually calling those of us who find your OP frustrating liars? Harsh and unwarranted, I think.
No, he didn’t! He said “some people make up stuff and lie”. This is entirely true. Go ahead, prove that isn’t so! So, therefore it necessarily follows that Scylla is telling the truth. Well then, if he’s telling the truth and you are disagreeing that means: she’s a witch!
She turned me into a–aw, never mind.
You weren’t going to say “swine”. I know you wouldn’t have said “swine”.
The hitchhiker he picked up proved she was a witch by kissing him. He turned into a motel. 
For sampling purposes, they are.
If you like we could choose instances of racism versus instances of eating chocolate chip cookies.
If you are hunting through a large amount of data specifically looking for something chances are you will find instances of it. Since you are actively selecting that data it doesn’t actually tell you anything about the makeup of the population you selected it from.
For example, if I get a jar full of M & M s. Let’s say 10,000. The jar is opaque so I can’t see inside. However, I can take one M&M out at a time, and regard it.
If my hypothesis is that M&Ms tend to be red, how do I prove it?
If I do it your way, what I do is keeping picking M&Ms until I find red ones. Once I have a big handful of red M&Ms I show it, point triumphantly at the jar, and say that this is a jar of mostly red M&Ms, or that M&Ms in this jar tend to be red.
This is not the correct way to do it. You have proven nothing except that you can hunt and find red M&Ms. The Concentration of Red M&Ms might be 1 in 2, or 1 in 5, or in 1 in 10, or even 1 in 100. You don’t know.
In fact the only thing that you’ve proven is that M&Ms exist n the jar, and you seem to want to find them.
That’s what you’re doing with your examples of racism. They tell us nothing about the sample that you’ve picked them from. All it tells us is you wanted to select it.
And yes, whether it’s incidence of racism, lies, or fucking M&Ms the principles are exactly the same.
If you are selecting your data., it’s not valid. It demonstrates nothing beyond your selection prejudices.
Scylla, we don’t need statistical analysis, nor any definitions thereof, any more than we need to see if Trent Lott will float (to belabor the metaphor). You may insist on that kind of proof all you like, it is irrelevent and will remain so regardless of your insistence. You can no more prove racism with statistical analysis than you can prove beauty with a osciloscope.
No doubt, we will not prove our case to your satisfaction, but no one in thier right mind ever imagined we would. Well, perhaps Minty did, but he’s but a young pup, full of romantic notions.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kimstu *
**Scylla: I don’t wish to argue historic racism and pandering in either party.
Fine, but I think the point being made here is that the historic “pandering to racism” strategy among Republicans persisted a lot longer than it did among Democrats—up to the very recent past in some cases. Consider not just Lott, but the instances discussed here about the Reagan “states’ rights” speech, campaigns in the 1990’s, the association of prominent national Republicans like Ashcroft, Lott, and Barr with neo-Confederate or “white rights” supporters like Southern Partisan or the Council of Conservative Citizens.
[quote]
**
No. I think that some people would like us to think so. Both parties had openly racist elements until the late 60s early 70s.
States do have rights of self-determination as provided by the Constitution, and talking about them does not make one a bigot no matter how much one wishes to beleive in code words.
Similarly not every Southern White Boy who is proud to be a Southernor, and proud of his ancestors who fought “the war of Northern Agression,” and has a Confederate flag on his truck is a bigot. In fact, most are not. And, up until recently it wasn’t such a big deal to express “Southern Pride.” Witness the Dukes of Hazard for chrissake. Lost causes are romantic.
And, I don’t buy until guilt by association either. In fact, I’d venture to say that most people are not free of prejudice. If you can’t associate with somebody because they have beleifs yo think are wrong without being labelled by the lowest common denominator of the people you know, than nobody better talk to anybody else.
Shit. The fraternity I belonged to in College was started by a bunch of confederates. Racism was not an issue, as can be seen from our membership photo.
If it’s guilt by association I daresay we can label anybody we want however we want them.
Several times the add has been brought up concerning the white hands crumpling a paper and complaining that affirmative action cost some people jobs.
Well, I got news for you. It did. I think it was wrong. I think it was replacing one form of discrimination with another. I’m against affirmative action.
I don’t think showing such an add is racist or pandering to racism, any more than an ad showing black people getting screwed over by the system is bad. It’s telling the public where the candidate stands on the issue.
[quote]
You’re demanding evidence that that pandering has persisted all the way up to right now in 2002, and if you don’t get that evidence, you’re going to call people hypocrites or bigots if they complain about the past alliances between Republicans and racists.
[quote]
No. I’ll say it’s irrelevant. Nathan Bedford Forest was a Democrat. Can we still complain to the Democrats about that?
Yes. Dead and buried by both parties.
Yes. The repercussions will be felt, because the Democrats have a very strong interest in maintaining those flawed beliefs and are doing everything they can to perpetuate the racial tension of which they are the beneficiary in terms of minority voting blocks.
What? The last overt reference to such a thing is Nixon in 1968? 72? That’s 30 years.
I’m sure that quite a few Democrats hope so, and will do or say whatever they can to ensure it.
Ok Scylla, but suppose what we want to do is prove that Jar A has more red M&Ms than Jar B? Would the following be an acceptable strategy?
I take Jar A and grab the top two inches of M&Ms (let’s call that 20 years). I find X red M&Ms. If you took the top two inches of M&Ms from Jar B and couldn’t find some Y > X red M&Ms, would that not be a fairly decent method of claiming that Jar A most likely contains more red M&Ms than Jar B? At worst, you’ve biased your sample by only picking the top M&Ms (the most recent history), but that seems to actually serve to show that the top few inches of Jar A have more red M&Ms than the top few inches of Jar B - which is closer to what you want us to prove anyway.
The argument isn’t, after all, that all Republicans support the Southern Strategy, but merely that too many do.
Daniel:
If I look hard enough I’m sure I can. That’s selective sampling though and is an invalid way of doing it.
For example, say that we’ve discussed 20 incidents pertaining to Republicans, but there’s 100 more that we didn’t discuss. If I go out and find 20 incidents of Democrats, there might only be 5 more that we haven’t discussed.
Both samples would appear equal because they were selected, but they tell us nothing about the actual frequency of incidence.
Daniel:
That’s specifically why I wrote a narrow OP, and asked specific questions which for the most part are being ignored, or misdirected.
If you have another agenda you’d like to discuss, start the thread.
I’m looking here for proof of an active and present bigotry or pandering agenda on the part of the Republicans.
That’s why I started the thread. There have been several accusations that it exists. I am uninterested in the other issues until this has proof has been offered to prove the truth of those accusations or the general consensus arrives that they are false.
I think that one question is enough for now.
Miltan:
[quote]
I take Jar A and grab the top two inches of M&Ms (let’s call that 20 years). I find X red M&Ms. If you took the top two inches of M&Ms from Jar B and couldn’t find some Y > X red M&Ms, would that not be a fairly decent method of claiming that Jar A most likely contains more red M&Ms than Jar B?
[quote]
Yes it would. Who’s examined Jar B before making their accusation.
I have seen no attempt at a comparison just M&Ms from jar A being displayed.
Oh, and that’s specifically why I suggested a comparison of recent campaigns.
Its a stacked deck. (This is starting to sound a lot like hanging chads)
Its a given that overt racist statements aren’t going to be made. Anybody doing so might as well nail his pecker to a tree and set the tree on fire. So, if we’re going to compare Republican racist innuendo as opposed to Dems “exploiting” racism to its own ends, it goes like this:
Senator Fogbottom: “I have long cherished our Southern heritage, Strom Thurmon, and the flag of our beloved Dixie”
Dems say: subtle racist code. One for our side.
Scylla says, Nope, nope, thats just local pride and historical reference. No racism there. Nope.
Senator Throckmorton says: We Democrats have long been in the forefront of civil rights.
Scylla says: AHA! Exploting racism to demonize Republicans! Bigotry! Bigotry! One for my side!
Scylla anybody dumb enough to play your game by your rules isn’t smart enough to make his own oatmeal. Instant oatmeal.