Is the American Religious Right rooted in racism?

Which is covered in the article linked in the OP, BTW.

Do you remember how Mike Dukakis campaigned at the same place, or how Carter opened his campaign at the birthplace of the KKK? And Reagan did not open his campaign there, he opened his campaign in New Jersey, hit the Neshoba county fair, and then went to NYC to announce his plan for the inner cities.

I feel obliterated. its especially crushing that you noticed my obliteration.:rolleyes:

In what way is “take back America” dog whistle for anything other than take back America from the Republicans?

I can cite article after article that says that Republicans blow dog whistles at the racists that everyone knows are in the republican party but no one wants to openly acknowledge.

Trump is doing the same thing but he is using a trumpet rather than a dog whistle.

He’s also been pretty pro-choice his entire life but that’s not stopping allegedly single issue voters from voting for him.

And you can be racist without being racist against blacks.

You are the one who claimed “Take back America” was a racist dog whistle. It is obviously not a dog whistle and it is ridiculous to think so. The idea that politicians are sending out secret signals to people via coded language in their speeches is a stupid conspiracy theory. I’m sure you could find lots of articles that make that claim just like I could produce alot of articles that show Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. What you have failed to provide is any actual evidence of these secret messages because there is no such evidence except in the minds of the gullible.

To the extent that it implies America (or anywhere) is being run by the wrong people and “our sort” (whoever they are) need to be in charge, it is a dog whistle, because it doesn’t spell out in detail who the wrong people and “our sort” are, but leaves it open to the listener to guess. It doesn’t need to be some sort of conspiracy, just carefully suggestive - rather than explicit - advertising.

Can you point to the post where I say “take back america” is a racist dog whistle?

In post 21, I say:

"I can see how MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN could be dog whistle. "

And phrases are dog whistles depending on who is saying the phrase.

A guy who keeps talking about keeping out Muslims and deporting 11 million illegal Mexican immigrants is probably trying to appeal to a different audience when he says “make america great again” than the guy who keeps talking about free college education.

Its not conspiracy. Its political fact. Republican politicians use racist dog whistles to appeal to racist that they know exist but cannot openly acknowledge. Or are you under the impression that the Republican party doesn’t deliberately try to appeal to racists?

Its like you never heard of the Southern Strategy.

Before that the dixiecrat arm of the Democratic party used the phrase “states right”'_rights#States.27_rights_as_.22code_word.22

Its hard to see how any rational person would put theories about Hillary’s role in the death of Vince Foster in the same category as dog whistle politics. YMMV

The notion that they DON’T is naivete bordering on idiocy.

Dukakis erred in appearing at Philadelphia, MS and not speaking of the civil rights murders that had taken place there. He should have been criticized for that.

With Reagan, it’s semantics. Reagan’s appearance was the first stop of his campaign. If you want to quibble and say that’s not where he said “I’m running”, go ahead and quibble.

With Carter, you’re giving him a bad rap.

It very obviously is, if you think for even five seconds about who is to take America back from whom in this slogan. Hint: It ain’t the 99% taking it back from the 1%.

A dog whistle is a secret signal that only certain people can hear. When Hillary Clinton said she wanted to take America back she meant that she wanted to take it back from the Republicans. When a Republican says they want to take American back it means they want to take it back from Democrats. There is no hidden meaning, it is out front and obvious.

I am aware of the racist Southern Strategy and Cinderella and that they are both stories that never happened.
If you have evidence of such a thing as a racist dog whistle existing beyond some liberal claiming that they do go ahead and produce it.

The Southern Strategy is as real and well-documented as anything in the history of American electoral or partisan politics.

Its only relevance to Cinderella is that both offer you a moral lesson: If the shoe fits, wear it.

See also here.

It was not the first stop in his campaign, New Jersey was. The fact that Civil Rights murders happened seven miles away 16 years before does not turn a county fair into a meeting of racists. That is like saying any politician who speaks in Dallas is signalling their approval of the Kennedy assassination. Mississippi was an important state in the election of 1980 that Carter had won the previous election and that Reagan wanted to win. Reagan spoke at the fair for the same reason Dukakis did, to try to win votes.
The question is one of standards, if Reagan is a racist for speaking at a county fair near where a civil rights killing had happened 16 years before than Carter is one for speaking at the town where the KKK was formed. I happen to think both appearances mean nothing and that having something bad happen in a place in the 1960s does not forever mark anyone who speaks there as tainted.

Lee Atwater ain’t no liberal.

No it isn’t. Repeating a myth does not make it true.
The Southern Strategy myth is sour grapes, the South does not vote for Democrats anymore so they call southerners names.
You have also missed the point of Cinderella.

The Lee Atwater quote means the opposite of what you think it does. He is saying that since appeals to race backfire candidates have to talk about other issues. Yet you are claiming that by saying that appeals to race backfire candidates should appeal race.It makes no sense the way you interpret it.

It was the Reagan Revolution that got the Religious Right to drop divorce as an issue. Prior to that, being divorced was looked down upon in that society.

Consider the position of the “Christian Left”, far less judgmental, far more inclusive, resting their life philosophy on “Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself” and “Do Unto Others…”

The Christian Left rely on the words and actions of Jesus as their guideline. The Christian Right rely on their dogmatic rejection of Homosexuality and Abortion. There is very little tolerance there, and, thus, very little Christianity, as defined by the life of Christ.

I think Sanders outlined this position quite adequately at that RR university – Liberty? whatever.

Valerie Tarico writes: