# Hope for the Republican Party of the future? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 11, 2014, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423 "2014-03-11T13:28:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/381 "2014-03-25T23:39:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If you’re going to use phrases like “pathologies in the black community”, then you probably shouldn’t be talking about it. Talk to individuals as individuals, and about individuals. You’ll rarely go wrong if you just talk to people as people and about people. Two problems with that statement: First, are you arguing there aren’t pathologies in the black community? Second, we’re not talking about how to help a poor person, we’re talking about how to help poor people, so there’s no way around talking about them as a group. > [@](#): > > Don’t be paternalistic. Don’t pretend you have the answers. Don’t lecture. If you do any of these things, you will probably say something really stupid. From a politician’s perspective, it’s hard to avoid that. Couldn’t it be argued that the administration’s push to get young people enrolled in the exchanges is explicitly paternalistic? Wouldnt this be offensive to young people? And politicians make their living pretending to have the answers and lecturing. I’m not sure you can have politicians talking about race at all under those circumstances, much less speaking about it frankly. > [@](#): > > Key word here is “overt”. No, there’s not as much overt racism from public figures any more. But there’s still a good bit of non-overt racism, like what Ryan said. I see zero evidence that Paul Ryan was attempting to be racist on the downlow. Even Paul Krugman, who wrote a whole column about it, didn’t want to impugn Ryan personally, just the ideology behind his statement. Which is fair enough. If there isn’t actually a problem of inner city men not working and not even thinking about work, then we shouldn’t say that. But there is a problem like that, and it’s reflected in government statistics. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/382 "2014-03-25T23:40:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > **lance** – can you do any better than **adaher’s** attempt to answer my question in post # 358: Doh! Do not remind me of my failure.☹ Oh, and you’re a pederast.😃 ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/383 "2014-03-25T23:46:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Two problems with that statement: First, are you arguing there aren’t pathologies in the black community? I’d have to be clear on the definitions of “pathologies” and “the black community”, so I’m not convinced. There are pathologies with individuals (of any group), for certain. > [@](#): > > Second, we’re not talking about how to help a poor person, we’re talking about how to help poor people, so there’s no way around talking about them as a group. Perhaps that’s why such efforts are doomed. It also assumes that most poor or otherwise disadvantaged people are in their situation because of mistakes they’ve made that can be overcome. > [@](#): > > From a politician’s perspective, it’s hard to avoid that. Couldn’t it be argued that the administration’s push to get young people enrolled in the exchanges is explicitly paternalistic? Wouldnt this be offensive to young people? This probably could be argued, but it strikes me as a bad argument. > [@](#): > > And politicians make their living pretending to have the answers and lecturing. I’m not sure you can have politicians talking about race at all under those circumstances, much less speaking about it frankly. The ones (like Bill Clinton or Obama) don’t make the same blunders that Ryan (and others) make, because they use different language and avoid those tripwires. Ryan should have known better (and probably did). > [@](#): > > I see zero evidence that Paul Ryan was attempting to be racist on the downlow. Even Paul Krugman, who wrote a whole column about it, didn’t want to impugn Ryan personally, just the ideology behind his statement. I don’t really care what Ryan’s motives were. It’s very possible that he was not trying to be racist at all. But what he said is still racist, or can be reasonably interpreted as racist. > [@](#): > > Which is fair enough. If there isn’t actually a problem of inner city men not working and not even thinking about work, then we shouldn’t say that. But there is a problem like that, and it’s reflected in government statistics. Which has nothing to do with accusations of racism. It’s entirely possible to talk about these topics without saying racist things. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/384 "2014-03-25T23:50:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t really care what Ryan’s motives were. It’s very possible that he was not trying to be racist at all. But what he said is still racist, or can be reasonably interpreted as racist. What? I’d argue that it can’t possibly be racist without motivation. Racism isn’t just words, it’s the meaning. If I say “nigger” is that racist, even if I say “nigger is an offensive, racist word”? Intent matters. It’s essential, in fact. > [@](#): > > Which has nothing to do with accusations of racism. It’s entirely possible to talk about these topics without saying racist things. But when you have just said that you can declare something to be racist even when there is no intent of racism, you’re setting a trap. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/385 "2014-03-25T23:53:15Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Sure. > > You’re a rapist! I remain unharmed 🙂 > [@](#): > > Seriously, it’s weird to ask for “someone in history” as if it has to be a famous person or famous case. It doesn’t have to be a famous person. I think it’s probably likely that someone in history (not necessarily famous) has been harmed by such a false accusation. I just don’t know of anyone – please find one for me. > [@](#): > > But a google search on “falsely accused racism” easily picks up many case of people explaining the harm they’ve suffered from this happening to them. Their reputations were ruined, they lost jobs, etc. I did the google search, and a cursory search did not find any cases of significant suffering due to a false accusation of racism. Again, this isn’t a gotcha game – there probably are people out there. I just can’t find them – can you? I’d love to read about the real stories that may well be out there. > [@](#): > > You don’t seem to understand what’s going on here. False accusations of racism, like rape, are wrong for two reasons: > > 1. They harm the person accused - because being accused of doing evil is, you know, bad. If you think racism or rape is wrong, you should think being accused of it is a serious thing. Yes, it’s bad. And I still am not convinced that more than a very few people (of whom I’ve yet to find evidence), if that, have actually suffered significantly from false accusations of racism. > [@](#): > > 1. It dilutes real cases of racism, or rape, hurting those who were really harmed and making it harder for them to get justice. This is possible, but I think this supposed storm of false racism accusations (or false rape accusations), other than perhaps the anonymous (and meaningless) hordes of twitter and the like, is a fantasy. Basically, I think there aren’t that many false accusations of racism – this is a right-wing victimization fantasy, for the most part, IMO. Both in the frequency, and even more in the severity. Again, please show me some people who suffered significant harm because of false racism accusations. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/386 "2014-03-25T23:56:01Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > What? > > I’d argue that it can’t possibly be racist without motivation. Racism isn’t just words, it’s the meaning. > > If I say “nigger” is that racist, even if I say “nigger is an offensive, racist word”? > > Intent matters. It’s essential, in fact. No it’s not. If you say “niggers are dumb”, you just said something racist, even if you meant it as a joke. Maybe you’re around your buddies, and they all take it as a joke, so it’s no big deal. But that’s a racist thing to say. When someone says “black people are genetically inclined to lower intelligence, on average, than white people”, they are saying something racist, no matter what their intent is. Even if they believe it’s true and they have good reason to believe so. > [@](#): > > But when you have just said that you can declare something to be racist even when there is no intent of racism, you’re setting a trap. Life is tough, and being a politician is tough. The cream will rise to the top. I don’t know of any politicians who had great careers thrown away because of false accusations of racism. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/387 "2014-03-26T16:02:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Rather than pedophilia, it’s called pederasty . . . Nah, pederasty is always man-on-boy. You’re thinking of hebephilia or ephebophilia. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/388 "2014-03-29T00:38:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No it’s not. If you say “niggers are dumb”, you just said something racist, even if you meant it as a joke. Maybe you’re around your buddies, and they all take it as a joke, so it’s no big deal. But that’s a racist thing to say. > > When someone says “black people are genetically inclined to lower intelligence, on average, than white people”, they are saying something racist, no matter what their intent is. Even if they believe it’s true and they have good reason to believe so. I agree that if you have consequential views that are false, then that can make you racist even if your intent is not to be racist. But I distinguish that from rational or true views that simply hold a group in a bad light. African-American males are much less likely to be in the labor force than males of other races. They are also much less likely to be present fathers. As Obama would say, “We know this.” Which brings me to my next point. If a person says something about a group that most members of that group would readily agree with, it’s not racist. A racist statement is a racist statement irregardless of who says it. And I don’t feel a statement can be true yet also racist unless the statement is designed to incite hatred. Ryan’s statement was true, and was designed to identify a symptom of a problem that needed to be solved. He was not trying to appeal to rednecks, who aren’t even electorally relevant given their geographic distribution and voting habits. The “dog whistle” accusation only makes sense if you think there is a huge groundswell of white anger that Republicans can take advantage of to ride to electoral success. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/389 "2014-03-29T00:56:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I agree that if you have consequential views that are false, then that can make you racist even if your intent is not to be racist. I’m not talking about people, I’m talking about statements. Statements can be racist regardless of intent. > [@](#): > > But I distinguish that from rational or true views that simply hold a group in a bad light. African-American males are much less likely to be in the labor force than males of other races. They are also much less likely to be present fathers. As Obama would say, “We know this.” Which brings me to my next point. If a person says something about a group that most members of that group would readily agree with, it’s not racist. A racist statement is a racist statement irregardless of who says it. And I don’t feel a statement can be true yet also racist unless the statement is designed to incite hatred. So far, okay. You’re just talking about statistics. > [@](#): > > Ryan’s statement was true WRONG! Or at least it was not a factual statement – it was an opinion. > [@](#): > > , and was designed to identify a symptom of a problem that needed to be solved. He was not trying to appeal to rednecks, who aren’t even electorally relevant given their geographic distribution and voting habits. The “dog whistle” accusation only makes sense if you think there is a huge groundswell of white anger that Republicans can take advantage of to ride to electoral success. Again, it doesn’t matter why he said it. Based on the history of the use of such language, what he said could be reasonably interpreted to be a racist statement. Assuming he is an intelligent and well-versed politician, he should know this. But his intent didn’t matter if we’re just judging the statement. As for judging Ryan, he should recognize that this is a reasonable interpretation, and apologized. It’s not the end of the world to say something that might be interpreted as racist, and if one is open-minded, one might learn something from it. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/390 "2014-03-29T02:14:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Ryan’s statement was true, and **was designed to identify a symptom of a problem that needed to be solved**. Emphasis added. No, what he was trying to do was give his audience a target for their problems. “It’s not YOUR fault, it’s THEM” A tactic as old as Methuselah and unfortunately often effective… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/391 "2014-03-29T02:25:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Nah, pederasty is always man-on-boy. You’re thinking of hebephilia or ephebophilia. Or at least **I** am . . . I’ll be in my bunk. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/392 "2014-03-29T02:28:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If a person says something about a group that most members of that group would readily agree with, it’s not racist. A racist statement is a racist statement irregardless of who says it. Those two statements appear to contradict each other. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/393 "2014-03-29T02:31:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > He was not trying to appeal to rednecks, who aren’t even electorally relevant given their geographic distribution and voting habits. **Of course** rednecks are electorally relevant given their geographic distribution and voting habits. How do you think such a misplaced Jeff Foxworthy joke as W got to be POTUS?! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/394 "2014-03-29T04:01:41Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Emphasis added. > > No, what he was trying to do was give his audience a target for their problems. “It’s not YOUR fault, it’s THEM” > > A tactic as old as Methuselah and unfortunately often effective… Actually, he told them to help, and not just help by relying on government, but actually go to the inner cities and help. Now unless “help” is a code word for “form a lynching party”, he wasn’t seeking to cast blame, he was trying to help solve the problem. Making African-Americans rich is a far more effective vote-winning strategy for the GOP than making white people resent brown people. the GOP already has the white vote by a huge margin and it’s growing. The Democrats aren’t making any serious attempts to win the white vote back, assuming they won’t need it. So fine, we’ll beat the Democrats with success. Make more rich minorities, make more rich Republican minorities. Democrats cannot remain viable as a political party without a high poverty rate. So let’s reduce poverty and thereby drive a stake into the heart of the party of dependence. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/395 "2014-03-29T12:12:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Now unless “help” is a code word for “form a lynching party”, he wasn’t seeking to cast blame, he was trying to help solve the problem. This certainly does not have anything to do with whether what he said was racist or not. Many slave-owners probably thought they were “helping” their slaves. > [@](#): > > Making African-Americans rich is a far more effective vote-winning strategy for the GOP than making white people resent brown people. the GOP already has the white vote by a huge margin and it’s growing. The Democrats aren’t making any serious attempts to win the white vote back, assuming they won’t need it. So fine, we’ll beat the Democrats with success. Make more rich minorities, make more rich Republican minorities. LOL. If the Republicans wanted to make minorities richer, I would think they’d have different policies. And the Republicans might have a majority of the white vote, but the margin is far, far closer than the margin Democrats have for various minorities. > [@](#): > > Democrats cannot remain viable as a political party without a high poverty rate. So let’s reduce poverty and thereby drive a stake into the heart of the party of dependence. Complete and utter (and unsupported) nonsense. Just foolishness with no basis whatsoever. Limbaughesque, in both its idiocy and its complete disconnect with the real world. Where on earth did you come up with such an enormous pile of shit? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/396 "2014-03-29T12:12:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Making African-Americans rich is a far more effective vote-winning strategy for the GOP than making white people resent brown people. How’s that workin’ out for ya so far? > [@](#): > > So let’s reduce poverty Good to hear it. Too bad all you have as an agenda is to cut taxes on the rich, though. Gonna take a little more than that. > [@](#): > > and thereby drive a stake into the heart of the party of dependence. For most of us, fighting poverty is considered a good end in itself. Party affiliation is not a consideration except as a result of who’s working to fix problems and who’s opposing that. No wonder you’re confused. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/397 "2014-03-29T12:22:10Z")
I’m confused that Democrats haven’t made progress in fixing poverty. You’d almost think they had an incentive to keep people dependent. Well, we know they have such an incentive because Democrats lose voters making over $50,000 consistently. And their margins among those making $30,000+ are not enough to make up for it. So they need voters in poverty to win. Low poverty, Democrats can’t win elections. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/398 "2014-03-29T12:24:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m confused that Democrats haven’t made progress in fixing poverty. You’d almost think they had an incentive to keep people dependent. What drivel. Seriously, where do you get this crap, besides Limbaugh/Hannity and co? > [@](#): > > Well, we know they have such an incentive because Democrats lose voters making over $50,000 consistently. And their margins among those making $30,000+ are not enough to make up for it. So they need voters in poverty to win. Low poverty, Democrats can’t win elections. Complete nonsense. It’s not worth arguing this “Democrats are EVIL” crap. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/399 "2014-03-29T12:26:56Z")
They aren’t evil, they just respond logically to incentives. Increasing opportunity is harder than just handing out money, and it’s easy to rationalize handing out money when it directly buys you voters. Now maybe I’d believe Democrats were truly altruistic on poverty if they didn’t attack poor people who vote Republican or regard them as hypocrites for accepting public assistance and then voting Republican. You’d almost think Democrats were angry that some voters don’t stay bought. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423/400 "2014-03-29T12:28:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m confused that Democrats haven’t made progress in fixing poverty. Hmm? Ninety-nine percent have refrigerators. [Fox can explain it to you.](http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/09/most-offensive-fox-news-moments/poverty-no-longer-a-problem-because-poor-people-ow) > [@](#): > > Low poverty, Democrats can’t win elections. You seem to be saying poor people are poor not because the system is stacked against them, but because they’re foolish. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hope-for-the-republican-party-of-the-future/683423.md?page=21)