If you are a Republican, you are a racist -- or might as well be

[Evil_Captor]

@tomndebb

Sorry. Even granting that Nixon’s strategy was racist (and I would consider that of Reagan’s handlers, as well), the actual discussions and viewpoints regarding affirmative action, set asides, open housing, right to work, and a host of other issues that touch on race are not nearly so cut and dried as you would like to portray them.

I will grant you that there is room for reasonable people to negotiate on these issues. But we can’t ignore the fact that on almost every issue, the Republicans invariably pick the side that will work to the disadvantage of black people. Combined with the nature of the southern strategy, it’s very clear that this is not coincidence. You may choose to see this as a coincidence, but no reasonable person is likely to.

If Republicans are “racists–or might as well be,” then Democrats are “soft on Communism/terrorism/crime/etc.” (I find both charges silly.) In a country dominated by a two-party system, one’s options are to choose one of the two parties that is more likely to support the larger number of one’s positions or to support a party that has no chance of actively participating at the presidential, congressional, gubernatorial, or legislative level.

Good point – this is probably the most powerful counter-argument there is. Still, I don’t think those Repubs who are not active racists have really confronted the fact that in picking the Republican Party over other options, they are promoting a racist agenda.

Branding everyone from either of the major parties with a (fallacious) label is no different than the “code words” that you called out in the OP.

You’ve said nothing to establish that the Repubs aren’t racists by association.

Even on those issues regarding race where I would side with Democrats, I can generally see the legitimacy of specific points raised by Republicans regarding those issues. Laying down a blankewt condemnation does nothing to further the discussion or to reach the optimum decision on any issue.

It does a great deal – it forces Republicans who would like to think they aren’t racists to confront the racism inherent in their chosen party’s program.

[Evil_Captor]

@Airman Doors

I have yet to see one from you.

You post about a “Southern Strategy” and “code words” and then you make the blanket declaration that all Republicans are racist. That’s a terrific argument. Hey, the only two Presidents in history that were impeached were Democrats. Therefore all Democrats are amoral and corrupt. Same sort of argument, and just as stupid.

Your argument does not hold water. I have established the rationale and the means by which the Republican Party supports racism. That’s a little more than name-calling.

[Marley23]

You mean “unsavory” like Al Sharpton and Bill Clinton?

Oh, not the “if you criticize X, you must support Y” game. :rolleyes: Both of the above, and other Democrats we could both think of, are scoundrels, liars, jerks… (Mostly I just wanted to say ‘scoundrel.’) But I’d take them over outright racists, Klan members, religious kooks, et al.

[Evil_Captor]

@Sqube

Evil Captor, what point would you have us argue, exactly? You’ve made a unilateral assertion. You have neither asked nor implied any sort of question that would garner any sort of debate. If your argument had been expressed in something of a less extreme fashion, you might have found people willing to engage you in a fascinating discussion.

Instead… well, dog pile on you is the name of the game. Have fun.

It seems to me that Republicans have several line of argument here:

1. Our party is not racist. I’m not sure what the grounds would be here, but it’s an obvous line.

2. I’m a Republican, but I’m fighting racism from the inside, as a Republican.

3. I am a Republican on other more important issues and will happily dispense with racism as soon as it becomes possible for us to maintain power without appealing to racists. Until then, the Republican appeal to racism is a necessary evil. (This approach is probably what a lot of Repubs who don’t support racism feel, but would never admit to.)

I’m sure there are others, this is what I came up with as I typed. Maybe you could, you know, think about these issues instead of asking me to do all the intellectual heavy lifting for you?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

So you still maintain that all Republicans are racist?

I’m sure J.C. Watts will be glad to know what a racist he is. I guess he must be “acting white” or something. :rolleyes:

[Evil_Captor]

@xtisme

My father, who is a conservative/republican and also of hispanic/indian decent would be facinated to know that he is a racist…and that all republicans are racists too. In other news, did you know all hispanics are theves and lazy to boot? :rolleyes:

Doesn’t this kind of shit belong in the pit??

-XT

Surely you dont’ believe that only white people can be racist?

[Evil_Captor]

@coffeecat

That’s it. No way am I voting for Nixon this year.

Victory!!! Now if I can just prevent Reagan from being elected …

[Evil_Captor]

@Airman Doors

I have yet to see one from you.

You post about a “Southern Strategy” and “code words” and then you make the blanket declaration that all Republicans are racist. That’s a terrific argument. Hey, the only two Presidents in history that were impeached were Democrats. Therefore all Democrats are amoral and corrupt. Same sort of argument, and just as stupid.

Sorry, won’t do. I established the REASON that the Republicans appeal to racism via the Southern strategy. I established the techniques by which they do so via code words and opposition to whatever legislation might help even things out between the races. All you’ve got is name calling. You’re embarrassing yourself here.

[Evil_Captor]

@Bricker

My father came here from El Salvador with absolutely nothing.

As a Latin, etc.
How that that fit in with your theory?

• Rick

It’s pretty much irrelevant. What I’m saying is that, because of policies adopted by the Republican leadership, Republicans are defacto supporters of racism no matter what their personal beliefs.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Evil Captor

Sorry, won’t do. I established the REASON that the Republicans appeal to racism via the Southern strategy. I established the techniques by which they do so via code words and opposition to whatever legislation might help even things out between the races. All you’ve got is name calling. You’re embarrassing yourself here.

I am? Am I really? Has anyone supported your blanket condemnation yet? Who’s the one that’s embarassing himself here?

Incidentally, I never called anyone names. I said your argument was stupid. However, given your defense of your OP in the face of every singlr person in this thread disagreeing with you, I’m beginning to wonder about you.

[Evil_Captor]

@fruitbat

I am disturbed by the inability of many posters (here’s looking at you Evil Captor) to assign anything but the basest of motives to their political opponents. The title alone of your post shows a frighteningly immature understanding of our political system. You may be aware that we have only two parties here. Being a Republican is hardly akin to supporting Le Pen, or Zhirinovskhy.

I believe that when people are supporting racism, you ought to call them on it, not politely look away and pretend you don’t see it. I also tend to speak up when people use terms like “nigger” in my presence, in a racist sort of way. It’s the same thing really – not immaturity, but doing the right thing.

While I believe that you are correct in the essentially racist nature of the Southern strategy, it takes real chutzpah to slur roughly fifty percent of the electorate by association. Racist is one of the few things that no half civilized person wants to be called. You are using it as weapon, and as a bully. Do you believe that the Democratic party has no racists in its closet. Would it be reasonable to assign blame for the Tawanna Brawley affair to all Democrats?

Of course the Democrats ahve some racists in their closets. it is my hope that in the next election, many racists will hold their nose and vote Democratic because of the economy. you don’t seem to be getting the point. The Democratic Party leadership does not have a policy of supporting racist legislation as the Republicans do. Their followers may or may not be racist, but the Dem racists are not seeing their goals enacted by the party leadership.

I know this is going to be a shock to our more extreme posters, but I actually believe that there are good honest people from both parties. I believe that blind partisanship displays a lack of critical thinking, and that posts like yours start down the path of extremism.

Show me where I displayed a lack of critical thinking. So far the Republican apologists who have posted here ahve been long on generic name calling and short on actual argument.
It is a shame that you only see black and white. I usually vote for a Democrat, but on occassion I am happy to vote for a good Republican candidate. If that makes me a racist then so be it.
[/QUOTE]

[Bricker]

What, specifically, are the racist legislative acts promoted by the Republicans?

The OP mentions opposition to affirmative action, as well as Jim Crow laws. I feel sure the OP will acknowledge that the GOP does not currently support Jim Crow laws, and that the Democratic party was once the one fighting for slave ownership. So the past seems not to be a fruitful arena for comparisons.

Now, currently, apart from opposition to affirmative action, what are the GOP’s racist legislative goals?

• Rick

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Fine. You want an argument?

Your premise is: If you are a Republican, you’re a racist.

I say: Prove it. Prove that each any every registered Republican is a racist. It’s your assertion, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It’s that simple.

Your “Southern Strategy” and “code word” stuff may lead you to a certain conclusion, but that does not mean that that conclusion is correct, and since you made the claim that “If you are a Republican, you are racist”, you can prove that you are correct. Have at it, and good luck. :rolleyes:

I’ll be around to refute any more such proclamations that are posted without absolute demographic proof that you make in the future.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

What, specifically, are the racist legislative acts promoted by the Republicans?

<snip>

Now, currently, apart from opposition to affirmative action, what are the GOP’s racist legislative goals?

I’m surprised you’d accept that premise. Being against some forms of AA does not equate to racism. If I were to propose legislation that provided all minority groups with $5000 cash per year and you opposed it, which one of us is the racist? Hey, my legislation helps minorities, so it can’t be me, right?

All you need to do is look at the latest SCotUS decision on the Michigan case to see that AA, in which minorities are given an explicit advantage, is not considered constituational.

If you held the majority at the expense of the minority, that is racism. If you swap minority and majority in that statement, it is also true.

[John_Mace]

Let’s look at a more realistic hypothetical:

The Demcrats propose legislation to set up a special fund to give low interest loans to minority-owned businesses. No means testing is required, only that the company can demostrate that its ownership is at least 75% minority, for which self-description is the only req’t to establish “minority membership”. Republicans oppose the legislation. Which party is being racist?

[Bricker]

@John Mace

I’m surprised you’d accept that premise.

Who said I accepted the premise? I’m just listing the specifics the OP ennumerated. The OP mentions Jim Crow laws and opposition to affirmative action. Dispensing with the Jim Crow bit is trivial; the AA discussion will take longer, and, frankly, a case can be made for the other side, although not one I agree with. I want to see what other examples the OP has before rebutting them.

• Rick

[John_Corrado]

@Evil Captor

Of course the Democrats ahve some racists in their closets. it is my hope that in the next election, many racists will hold their nose and vote Democratic because of the economy. you don’t seem to be getting the point. The Democratic Party leadership does not have a policy of supporting racist legislation as the Republicans do. Their followers may or may not be racist, but the Dem racists are not seeing their goals enacted by the party leadership.

Dem racists are not seeing their goals enacted because they don’t currently control the government.

Let me ask you this- do you deny that Louis Farrakhan is a racist, and that the Nation of Islam has a racist agenda? After all, they promote black supremacy, anti-semitism, and a need to exclude whites from all matters. And do not Democrats- Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and others- constantly attempt to shore up the support of the Nation of Islam through advocating the same policies?

In addition, your assertion of “racist legislation” is completely based upon the assumption that an opposition to affirmative action is racist. But isn’t the very definition of racism that of defining someone by his race? And isn’t that what affirmative action does- defines a certain subgroup as ‘more desirable’ and places them first in exclusion to other groups?

If you wanted to work for a non-racist society, you would work towards a blind society, one in which every child born had the same opportunities regardless of class or color. That is not what affirmative action works for; it works to continue to divide this country by race. It may have the goal of reversing past anti-black discrimination by replacing it with pro-black discrimination, but that still is discrimination and still leads to resentment and divide between the groups.

By that token, then, it is the Democrats who are a racist party, working constantly to keep the races divided and society color-aware rather than color-blind. Backers of affirmative action wish to ensure that one race has an advantage over another. Let’s be honest- the basic concept of affirmative action is a lie. The system of cronyism which it claims to be counter-acting is not one of race, but one of class. No one got a ‘special priveledge’ into Yale or Harvard for being white, they got it for being of a certain class and social group. No son of Polish immigrants ever got into Yale because of ‘family connections’. Yet the system that affirmative action attempts to create discriminates against said son of Polish immigrants just as much as the old crony system did because he is the wrong skin color whereas before he was the wrong class. Just because 100% of the upper class who got into Yale through family connections and who ran American companies for generations are/were white does not conversely mean that 100% of whites can get into Yale through family connections and can become the next president of an American company due to ‘the old boy network’, yet this is the essential assumption that affirmative action makes. All whites are grouped together and declared ‘undesirable’.

Tell me how that’s not racist.

[hansel]

Evil Captor, besides some hand-waving about the Southern Strategy, you’ve done nothing to show that the Republican party is following a systematic agenda of appealing to racist positions, or even that the Southern Strategy is still operative and dominant in their strategizing. Until you do that, you’re just pointing fingers.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

I tend to lean ever so slightly toward the left end of the US spectrum ;), and I’m not seeing much merit in your argument, Evil Captor. Accusing someone of racism is as extreme as accusing someone of lying: you must have specific, rock-solid evidence in order to make such an accusation stick. You’ve not come close to having such evidence.

Personally, I think that affirmative action is, like democracy, a terrible policy, defensible only because it’s better than any of the alternatives out there. As soon as we rectify past injustices (both difficult to do and absolutely necessary), we should dispense with it.

The (admittedly convoluted) analogy I use is this: when we were kids, your mom bought you Christmas presents and my mom bought me Christmas presents. My mom, being strong, went over to your house before Christmas and stole all your presents, giving them to me on Christmas day. They were really good presents, too: things like Treasury bonds and stuff.

Years later, based in part on the wealth of these presents, I’m living the life of Riley. You, not having any of those bonds or anything, got off to a much rockier start. Eventually, after our moms have both died, you track me down, and demand compensation.

Did I steal anything from you? Of course not. Am I innocent? Of course.

Do I owe you anything? Yes: my wealth is based on a crime committed by my ancestors, and I still possess the fruits of stolen wealth. I owe you your share, the share your parents would’ve passed on to you if my parents hadn’t stolen it from them.

In the same way, I’m innocent of the crime of slavery. I didn’t steal anything from any black person. At the same time, my ancestors stole the labor of black people and built our family’s wealth on that stolen labor; it got passed on to me in terms of superior housing, superior education, etc.

Affirmative action is an inefficient means of rectifying these old crimes. But they need rectifying, and until someone suggests a better means of doing that, AA is the best we have.

Opposition to AA can be rooted in its inefficiency. That doesn’t make its opponents racist: it makes them disagree either on the ethical principle I suggested above, or on the most efficient means of satisfying that ethical principle.

But when you call opponents of AA racists, you end debate. You ensure that they’ll not listen to you any longer. And you reinforce their opinion that supporters of AA are irrational and/or motivated by base desires.

Please don’t do that.

Daniel

[rjung]

@John Mace

Well your own quote says the source of the fliers is unknown. Is it your contention that the OP is correct?

Nah, I think the OP was crazy-ass crud. I simply pointed out the Baltimore flier incident to show comrade elucidator that race-based election supression tactics have occurred more recently.

Look, accusations can fly back and forth about racially charged campaign tactics.

No disagreement from me. Which is bound to disappoint xtisme, I’m sure.