I assume that the majority of the Republican leadership and Republican elected officials are not racist.
I will not agree that any significant proportion of Republican policies are based on racism.
However, I do believe that from about 1964 (until, perhaps, some relatively recent date?), the majority of Republican victories in any election has depended on the courting of and electoral support from racist voters and that those voters, voting on the basis of racist views, constituted the winning margin in Republican victories.
For that reason, the party has actively courted racist voters, or, at the very least, sent coded signals that whatever else it might say openly about race, it did not dislike them or their views.
That’s what “aid and comfort” means, I believe.
Prior to 1964, the southern wing of the Democratic party did this too, but not in a coded way, because it didn’t have to. During that period openly racist rhetoric was acceptable. From 1964 on, the Republican strategy was successful in capturing the racist bloc from the Democrats.
Well, since literally shredding is not an option here in the States, the Texas Republican party settled for expressing regret for the incident as soon as they learned of it and banning the exhibitor from ever participating in any other state event again.
I will not attempt to validate my feelings here. I’m offended.
I can’t explain it better than others here have attempted to explain it (hotflungwok did a great job) and I will not debate this with anyone. Some may nitpick this situation or wording to show that this is just a joke or how it’s inoffensive compared to other situations or that perhaps I’m just too sensitive.
The headline in **Jodi’s ** cite: “Texas Republicans cut off vendor that sold **racist ** campaign pin”. (my bolding in quotes).
Despite what I just said about not debating - the headline uses the word 'racist" so to those explaining how this is is just a joke: Is the newspaper sensationalizing the issue? Is the Republican Party sensationalizing this?
The Republican Party, no. I don’t know where you’d get the idea that the Republican Party gets to tell the Dallas Morning News what to put in its headline - and the only quote from a party official in that story called the pin “distasteful”, not “racist”.
That’s cultural bigotry, not racial - for all you know both women may be blonde haired and blue eyed - but IMHO that story is twice as bad as the one we’re talking about. It doesn’t make the Democratic Party racist - but then, I wasn’t one of the people calling Republicans racist either.*
*That said, I fully agree with ascenray’s earlier post.
I’d like to see examples of these “coded messages,” please. IME, people see “code” where they want to. Republicanism has a big component of MYOB, so if what you’re looking for is some Republican-wide rejection of voters who may hold racist views, you’re not going to find them. But I see precious little evidence that efforts by the Republicans to reach out to a large bloc of disaffected Southern voters means the party tolerated, much less encouraged, racism in any institutional way.
And even if they did, how is that relevant to this discussion? I find it very telling that we are still talking about a regional issue from 20 to 40 years ago in the context of what the national party as a whole does or does not do today, or supports or does not support today. And we’re also talking about a “strategy” that never had uniform support even within the party, and that was actively despised by many, including Nelson Rockefeller and the so-called “liberal” Republicans (including myself) who agreed and agree with him. So tell me: Where exactly is the requirement that a party must affirmatively proclaim its unified dislike of any voter or his or her views? Would that no be effectively done by, say, platform planks supporting civil rights and racial equality, as the Republican Party has had for pretty much ever?
It’s not like “racism” is a mantle that one party or the other has to wear: It was the Democrats’ until the Civil Rights Act and then it got passed to the Republicans’. Lord knows there are myriad issues on which the parties disagree, but fundamental racial equality is not one of them; it is an American ideal that is embraced by both. Neither is a racist party. Now, I’m certainly willing to buy that more racists identify as Republicans than as Democrats, seeing as how they like to justify or defend their personal racism under the banner of personal responsibility and general MYOB. But that doesn’t make their views the party’s views.
ETA: And make no mistake: I find the button racist, too. I have a hard time seeing how it could not be considered so. I just object strongly to the idea that one dipshit exhibitor at one state convention is evidence of, much less “more” evidence of, some institutional racism in the party as a whole.
Oh, bollocks. MYOB is only a Republican ideal inasmuch as it applies to money and guns. Claiming to be the “hands-off” party is just empty rhetoric (from both sides, really).
I don’t know why you would believe that I’d ever had “the idea” that any subject determines a headline.
I asked if the Republican party was sensationalizing the incident. If it was considered just a simple joke, then barring the vendor from any future conventions seems a bit strong.
The anger stems from the perception, true or false, that the Democratic party is a haven for, or at least abides, religious discrimination, and will use religious discrimination to fulfill its ends, so when something like this comes out, once again linked to Democrats, it not only forms a disturbing pattern, but confirms what many already feel about the party.
No, it’s not. And I’m not sure how you read that into my comments.
I don’t consider that button a “joke,” anyway. It’s about context.
I mean, I suppose you could joke about how things would be “different” with a black first couple…I’ll bet Chris Rock could riff on it and it would be hilarious. But even if he used the same basic idea…well, there’s a big contextual difference between a black stand-up comedian known for poking fun at racial issues and a product being sold at a party-sponsored convention making race-related comments about the opposing party’s candidate.
You’ll have to be more specific as to which “liberal” Republicans turned Democrats you’re talking about, since AFAIK the idea that “almost all” of them are Democrats is simply inaccurate. Our biggest loss from the ranks was of course Jim Jeffords, but even he didn’t become a Democrat.
The fact is, most Rockefeller Republicans are dead, including Nelson himself of course. Their heirs are the moderate wing of the Republican party, and, yes, they are still Republicans. I am hardly in a position to argue that the more conservative wing of the party has not been in clear ascendancy, but that doesn’t mean we moderates aren’t still here, and are not still Republicans.
What did the Democratic party have to do with this? This was two volunteers acting on their own. Obama’s campaign has denounced their behavior and apologized profusely for it. A campaign can’t control everything a volunteer does. Extropolating it to an entire party is moronic.
Well (this a response to the quoted post and your more recent one) I’ll clarify my statement and say that the Republican claim to be the MYOB party is empty rhetoric as long as the religious-right hijack of the party continues.
I don’t think you’d argue with that statement.
While many moderate Republicans seem to think they’re winning the party back, McCain’s seeking, and subsequent acceptance, of John Hagee’s endorsement ought to be a pretty clear indication that this is not (yet) the case.
Thank you, Dio. It is so rare that we agree so completely.
In case it went by you, the words I used were Onomatopoeia’s about the Republican party. (see Post #23.) The very phrase I objected to, in fact. To which I now would reply, with your permission:
“What did the Republican party have to do with this? This was one vendor acting on its own. The Texas Republican party has denounced their behavior and banned them from further participation in state events. A state party can’t control everything a vendor might sell. Extrapolatibng it to an entire party is moronic.”
That’s pretty much the only point I’ve been trying to make, but you made it better than I did.
