How many Americans are there, now, who would vote for a Dem but never for a black?

[Richard_Parker]

@LilShieste

Actions like these don’t necessarily demonstrate racism - but they do demonstrate race-based discrimination.
LilShieste

Of course. Any use of race in decision-making is race-based discrimination. But I think the vast majority of people agree that such actions are good and necessary in some contexts.

[Shodan]

@Richard Parker

I’m not sure how you’re defining “official racism,” but by nearly any definition this is false.

“Separate but equal” as a matter of law, legal discrimination, segregation as a matter of law - that sort of thing. Do you really not understand what “Jim Crow” means?

The courts are still plenty busy dealing with racist housing laws, racist government hiring practices, and still trying to desegregate schools.

No, this is just an attempt to change the definition of “racist” from “equality of opportunity” to “equality of results” and so forth.

Black people are underrepresented in government. Many people believe that it is important to have a proportional number of representatives of your race in government. Therefore, they vote for members of that race disproportionately. Do you understand why that rationale doesn’t apply to white people?

Certainly I do - it is an attempt to rule out criticism ab initio by having different rules for blacks than for whites.

Did I lose you there because you’re not preconditioned to listen out of white, middle-class guilt?

Yes, pretty much. I tend to believe that people ought to be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. So to speak.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard_Parker]

This is a hijack. So: Is it racist for minorities to vote for minority candidates on the basis of race?

[Lust4Life]

@BrainGlutton

The assumption that there are many seems to underly the “a black can’t win” argument WRT Obama’s presidential candidacy. But is it true? In the '60s, it was the Dems who gave us the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, school integration through busing, and affirmative action. Many white Southern voters reacted by switching over to the Pubs, in such numbers that the South is now the party’s main vote base. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, he famously declared, “We [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation.”

Isnt the technical term for people like that “Arseholes?”
Though Im being hypocritical here ,Inever, ever vote for Patagonian stroke half Nepalese candidates in U.K. elections ,Im sorry I just hate them!

[Evil_Captor]

@Richard Parker

I understand that there is a school of thought that says any non-colorblind action is, in some sense racism. This is the same camp that thinks affirmative action is racist. Fortunately, that camp is not in the mainstream in America.

In addition, this so-called “colorblind” approach to racism gives EXCELLENT cover to racism. That is, the (generally conservative) folk who take this approach say, “YOu can’t have affirmative action because taking folks’ skin color into account is racist.” But on the other hand, blacks and Latinos may continue to be massively excluded from college, from top jobs in business, from any number of things, because they “aren’t qualified” or whatever other reasonable-sounding rationale you can come up with. So long as your official reason for excluding them has nothing to do with race or color, it’s not racist, you see. No matter how closely the outcomes of such decisions might match racist intents and desires. So the conservatives get to both block affirmative action and exclude blacks and others (it also works for sexism, of course) from educational and economic opportunities.

It’s a transparent ruse, in short – a lot more transparent than many of its adherents think it is.

[Horatio_Hellpop]

I’ll cop to being a liberal Democrat. This philosophical niche doesn’t oblige me to vote for any black comers regardless of their specific platforms. For my part, I’d like to see Obama rack up some more statesman-type achievements before he becomes my party’s nominee (Just like I wish GWB had racked some up before he ran in 2000). He gave a swell speech at the Democratic convention and he’s man-pretty; I want something more meaty before he gets my vote.

[Quartz]

Did Bush lose votes by having Condi Rice on his team?

[Spoke]

Never mind. My point has been covered.

Nice weather we’re having.

[raindog]

@Evil Captor

In addition, this so-called “colorblind” approach to racism gives EXCELLENT cover to racism. That is, the (generally conservative) folk who take this approach say, “YOu can’t have affirmative action because taking folks’ skin color into account is racist.”

But on the other hand, blacks and Latinos may continue to be massively excluded from college,

In what way are they being excluded? Because their transcripts, SATs and other objective criteria exclude them? Are they being denied because of race?

from top jobs in business,

Because they’re less qaulified? Or because of their race?
[/quote]

from any number of things, because they “aren’t qualified” or whatever other reasonable-sounding rationale you can come up with.

So what is the reason?

So long as your official reason for excluding them has nothing to do with race or color, it’s not racist, you see.

Bingo!

No matter how closely the outcomes of such decisions might match racist intents and desires.

What in the world is “outcomes of such decisions might match racist intents and desires”?

So the conservatives get to both block affirmative action and exclude blacks and others (it also works for sexism, of course) from educational and economic opportunities.

You have yet to show us how anyone is “blocked” from educational or economic decisions…other then being “unqualified”; a perfectly reasonable and appropriate reason to exclude someone of any race.

It’s a transparent ruse, in short – a lot more transparent than many of its adherents think it is.

It certainly appears that it is opaque to you.

[BrightNShiny]

I don’t think Obama’s race is going to matter much in this election. It’s going to be a strange one. There’s immense dissatisfaction with the Republican party in general, and the Republican front-runners all have various problems with the Republican base, which puts the Republican party at a disadvantage coming into the election.

And I think anyone who would not vote for Obama because of his race would not vote for the other two Democrat front-runners for similarly trivial reasons. The Democrat ticket is likely to include one of Obama, Clinton, or Edwards–so any way you slice, a certain amount of votes are going to be lost. The Democrats shouldn’t waste time trying to appeal to these people. They should spend time building grass-roots support and motivating their base–both of which are doable with any of the front-runners.

[Evil_Captor]

@the raindog

What in the world is “outcomes of such decisions might match racist intents and desires”?

It’s the crux of my argument. Republican pols, talking heads and online posters know they can pander to the racist vote because they and their racist buddies know this “color blind” stuff, while obvious bullshit, does achieve racist goals. It provides a counter-argument to affirmative action while allowing discrimination against non-whites in the business world to proceed in an orderly fashion, so long as the discrimination is publicly identified as something other than race … you know, low SAT scores, lack of experience, whatever it takes.