# On election Eve, Freepers hit a new low **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 3, 2008, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946 "2008-11-03T23:49:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/201 "2008-11-06T00:06:11Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Which wasn’t my claim, and which you didn’t do. Actually, you **did**. Note what you said: > [@](#): > > The past you are talking about is over 100 years ago, **for the most part.** _(bolding mine)_ Right there, **you** are admitting that racism existed as a party platform in the Dems _less than 100 years ago._ > [@](#): > > The time-frame reference is to the inception of the Southern Strategy, not the 100 years. You put out the 100 year figure, **not** me, and even **you** admitted that it has been less than 100 years. > [@](#): > > It helps if you actually read the posts. It also helps if you think before you post. > [@](#): > > And all you did show, Tuckerfan, is that the Dixiecrats were racists. We all knew that; it’s why they created the party. They were not the Democratic party. You’ll note that the Dems **didn’t** whip out a full blown Civil Rights platform which smashed the Jim Crow laws in 1948, either. You know _why_ Truman integrated the military? It **wasn’t** because he thought racism was wrong, it was because a WWII vet was lynched for being black. What pissed him off was that the lynchers had so little respect for a veteran, and to enact revenge, he integrated the military. Truman’s civil rights efforts were simply a ploy to curry votes **not** for any moral objections to the institution of racism. That the Dems in recent history have had a better stance on civil rights matters than the GOP is true, but to claim that it **hasn’t** been only the recent past that this has occurred is a disservice to those who struggled and died so that we can all be equal. Note that wiki states > [@](#): > > Years active 1948 (though Dixiecrats remained an active political faction within Democratic Party) Meaning, **quite clearly** they did **not** completely cut their ties with the Democratic party. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/202 "2008-11-06T00:42:10Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Actually, you **did**. Note what you said:_(bolding mine)_ Right there, **you** are admitting that racism existed as a party platform in the Dems _less than 100 years ago._ I did not admit that. And you left out a part of my post. What I said was > [@Bo](#): > > The past you are talking about is over 100 years ago, for the most part. **And I am unaware of any institutionalized Democartic party policies that support racism explicitly.** I notice that you left out that last sentence. I bolded it this time so it would be more noticeable. I still haven’t seen any evidence of this from you, just evidence that a splinter group left the Dems so they could be openly racist. What I showed, to rebut Scylla’s contention that saying Republicans use racism is over-the-top crazy talk, is that racism has been explicitly embraced by the party as a tool and strategy since the 1968 POTUS campaign. Scylla tried to claim that the Democratic party was also explicitly racist, and I simply pointed out that this is not an accurate depiction of the party. Members may have been racist, but the party, AFAIK, did not openly embrace racism. > [@](#): > > You put out the 100 year figure, **not** me, and even **you** admitted that it has been less than 100 years. It also helps if you think before you post. You should really follow your own advice here. > [@](#): > > You’ll note that the Dems **didn’t** whip out a full blown Civil Rights platform which smashed the Jim Crow laws in 1948, either. You know _why_ Truman integrated the military? It **wasn’t** because he thought racism was wrong, it was because a WWII vet was lynched for being black. What pissed him off was that the lynchers had so little respect for a veteran, and to enact revenge, he integrated the military. > > Truman’s civil rights efforts were simply a ploy to curry votes **not** for any moral objections to the institution of racism. That the Dems in recent history have had a better stance on civil rights matters than the GOP is true, but to claim that it **hasn’t** been only the recent past that this has occurred is a disservice to those who struggled and died so that we can all be equal. Note that wiki states > > > [@](#): > > > > Years active 1948 (though Dixiecrats remained an active political faction within Democratic Party) > > Meaning, **quite clearly** they did **not** completely cut their ties with the Democratic party. On the same page, in the text, not in a summation box: > [@](#): > > The States’ Rights Democratic Party dissolved after the 1948 election, although some diehards such as Leander Perez attempted to keep it in existence. [cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat) The people who left to form the Dixiecrats did indeed return to the Democratic party, but there was no explicitly racist platform in the Democratic party. You are picking a nit here, and not doing a very good job. I have no doubt that racists were part of the Democratic party, and prolly still are. I have no doubt that laws were enacted in the past because of racism, but that isn’t the same thing as institutionalizing racism into the party platform. A bill introduced by the senator from Mississippi isn’t the same thing as a party platform. Find me a cite where it says “Democratic Party Supports Keeping Negroes Down” or “Democrats Embrace Racism” (or similiar), and then you’ll have something worth talking about. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/203 "2008-11-06T00:50:57Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > What “spread?” Aren’t they the same site? 😕 > … Having that group marginalized is A Good Thing. It’s still the same brand of fruitcake nutjob. Besides, if they are all “relegated” to the Crazy Party, it’s easier to keep an eye on them. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/204 "2008-11-06T00:53:31Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > The people who left to form the Dixiecrats did indeed return to the Democratic party, but there was no explicitly racist platform in the Democratic party. > > \ > > Find me a cite where it says “Democratic Party Supports Keeping Negroes Down” or “Democrats Embrace Racism” (or similiar), and then you’ll have something worth talking about. > **[George Wallace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace)** > > George Corley Wallace Jr. (August 25, 1919 – September 13, 1998) was an American politician and lawyer who was the 45th and longest-serving governor of Alabama (1963–1967; 1971–1979; 1983–1987), and the longest-serving governor from the Democratic Party. Wallace is remembered for his staunch segregationist and populist views, although in the late 1970s he moderated his views on race, renouncing his support for segregation. During Wallace's tenure as governor of Alabama, he promoted "industrial... ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/205 "2008-11-06T01:29:45Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I did not admit that. And you left out a part of my post. What I said was > > I notice that you left out that last sentence. I bolded it this time so it would be more noticeable. Gee, you think that it might be because it _wasn’t_ relavent to the issue I was nitpicking? **You** said “100 years” as if the Dems had been pure as snow on the matter, which is clearly **not** the case. > [@](#): > > I still haven’t seen any evidence of this from you, just evidence that a splinter group left the Dems so they could be openly racist. [How’s about Governor Orval Faubus and the Little Rock case?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orval_Faubus) > [@](#): > > Orval Eugene Faubus (January 7, 1910 – December 14, 1994) was a six-term Democratic Governor of Arkansas, having served from 1955 to 1967. He is best known for his 1957 stand against the desegregation of Little Rock public schools during the Little Rock Crisis, in which he defied a unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court by ordering the Arkansas National Guard to stop African American students from attending Little Rock Central High School. Given that he served as governor up until 19 **67** , it seems pretty clear that he had the **state** Democratic party’s backing, if not the national party’s backing. Or are you now going to claim that this was some kind of “isolated” incident? Because the _established_ power structure in the South until the late 1960s was Democrat, and a good number of them fought **against** integration. > [@](#): > > What I showed, to rebut Scylla’s contention that saying Republicans use racism is over-the-top crazy talk, is that racism has been explicitly embraced by the party as a tool and strategy since the 1968 POTUS campaign. The GOP has been _less_ explicit about it in recent years than the pro-segregation Dems were in the 1950s and 60s. > [@](#): > > Scylla tried to claim that the Democratic party was also explicitly racist, and I simply pointed out that this is not an accurate depiction of the party. Members may have been racist, but the party, AFAIK, did not openly embrace racism. The Sourthern faction of the party **did** , however, and while many of those members have since shifted themselves over to the GOP side, they have **not** been nearly as vocal (in terms of **overt** comments) as they were when they were in the Democratic party. > [@](#): > > You should really follow your own advice here. Not nearly as much as you. > [@](#): > > On the same page, in the text, not in a summation box: > > [cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat) > > The people who left to form the Dixiecrats did indeed return to the Democratic party, but there was no explicitly racist platform in the Democratic party. > > You are picking a nit here, and not doing a very good job. I have no doubt that racists were part of the Democratic party, and prolly still are. I have no doubt that laws were enacted in the past because of racism, but that isn’t the same thing as institutionalizing racism into the party platform. A bill introduced by the senator from Mississippi isn’t the same thing as a party platform. And you’re prepared to show where the GOP party platform has _explicitly_ embraced racism, I’m sure. > [@](#): > > Find me a cite where it says “Democratic Party Supports Keeping Negroes Down” or “Democrats Embrace Racism” (or similiar), and then you’ll have something worth talking about. [The beginning of Democratic control in the South.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._civil_rights_movement) > [@](#): > > After the disputed election of 1876 and the end of Reconstruction, White Americans in the South resumed political control of the region under a one-party system of Democratic control. The voting rights of blacks were increasingly suppressed, racial segregation imposed, and violence against African Americans mushroomed. This period is often referred to as the “nadir of American race relations,” and while it was most intense in the South to a lesser degree it affected the entire nation. > > The system of overt, state-sanctioned racial discrimination and oppression that emerged out of the post-Reconstruction South and spread nation-wide became known as the “Jim Crow” system, and it remained virtually intact into the early 1950s. Systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans took place in Southern states at the turn of the century and lasted until national civil rights legislation was passed in the mid-1960s. For more than 60 years, they were not able to elect one person in the South to represent their interests. Because they could not vote, they could not sit on juries limited to voters. They had no part in the justice system or law enforcement, although in the 1880s, they had held many local offices, including that of sheriff. So the Deomcrats in the South were the ones to _enact_ the various Jim Crow laws, and given that the shift of the South to a Republican stronghold didn’t begin until **after** the passage of most of the Civil Rights laws, it seems pretty clear to me that there were a **large** number of Democrats in at least one part of the country who **advocated** racism. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/206 "2008-11-06T01:36:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [George Wallace - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace) Thank you for showing that 1 Dem embraced racism to further his political career. Please show me where the party embraced his methods. This is gonna be hard to do, in light of the fact that Pres. Kennedy (D) is the one who sent in the guard to make sure those students could go to school. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/207 "2008-11-06T01:38:57Z")
Look. This is a moot point. I really don’t care who was racist in the past. DT was suggesting that racism is the current cornerstone of Republican. I just used that as an example of wingnut idiocy. Snowboarder clearly seems to have some major dog in the hunt where it’s important to him that Democrats are superior to Republicans in terms of their racial enlightenment. Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/208 "2008-11-06T01:39:58Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Thank you for showing that 1 Dem embraced racism to further his political career. > > Please show me where the party embraced his methods. This is gonna be hard to do, in light of the fact that Pres. Kennedy (D) is the one who sent in the guard to make sure those students could go to school. Byrd’s a democrat and a former Klansmen. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/209 "2008-11-06T02:18:19Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Gee, you think that it might be because it _wasn’t_ relavent to the issue I was nitpicking? **You** said “100 years” as if the Dems had been pure as snow on the matter, which is clearly **not** the case. No, I didn’t say that the Dems were pure as snow. Why would I say that? Do you think that I don’t know what Jim Crow laws were? Again, what I said was > [@Bo](#): > > The past you are talking about is over 100 years ago, for the most part. And I am unaware of any institutionalized Democartic party policies that support racism explicitly. I don’t know why you can’t read all the words I wrote, but you can see that I used the caveat “for the most part”, indicating most of the overtly racist politics of the Democratic Party that Scylla referred to took place over 100 years ago. > [@](#): > > [How’s about Governor Orval Faubus and the Little Rock case?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orval_Faubus)Given that he served as governor up until 19 **67** , it seems pretty clear that he had the **state** Democratic party’s backing, if not the national party’s backing. Or are you now going to claim that this was some kind of “isolated” incident? Because the _established_ power structure in the South until the late 1960s was Democrat, and a good number of them fought **against** integration. And this shows that the Democratic party embraced a platform built on racism… how? That’s what you are arguing, but you do not show that. You show that some Democratic party members were/are racist, and that they may want to do racist things, but you have failed to show me that the Democratic party, as an institution, did/does/has done this. I agree that > [@](#): > > a good number of them fought **against** integration. That doesn’t mean “all”. Heck, it doesn’t even mean “most”. Can you provide a cite that says the Democratic party backed him on his policies, that they embraced his ideas at the national level; that they worked to implement similiar policies at the federal level? > [@](#): > > The GOP has been _less_ explicit about it in recent years than the pro-segregation Dems were in the 1950s and 60s. The Sourthern faction of the party **did** , however, and while many of those members have since shifted themselves over to the GOP side, they have **not** been nearly as vocal (in terms of **overt** comments) as they were when they were in the Democratic party. > > And you’re prepared to show where the GOP party platform has _explicitly_ embraced racism, I’m sure. Yes. I already did that in [post #180](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10404600&postcount=180) of this thread. Again, this is going to work better if you actually read the posts in the thread. > [@](#): > > [The beginning of Democratic control in the South.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._civil_rights_movement)So the Deomcrats in the South were the ones to _enact_ the various Jim Crow laws, and given that the shift of the South to a Republican stronghold didn’t begin until **after** the passage of most of the Civil Rights laws, it seems pretty clear to me that there were a **large** number of Democrats in at least one part of the country who **advocated** racism. Yes, they did. In 1876, and for some decades after. That’s 132 years ago. In fact, the last thing I know of that would fit your bill was the Southern Manifesto, written by Strom Thurmond, in 1956. And even it only got signed by 19 Senators and 81 members of the House. Hardly a party majority, and hardly a Democratic Party platform. Again, you haven’t shown me anything even close to the Southern Strategy. Certainly some megalomaniacal Democratic party members used racism in a similar way, but you haven’t shown me that the party as a whole institutionalized it the way that the Republican party did. > [@](#): > > In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican method of carrying Southern states in the latter decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century by exploiting racism among white voters. Show me that with reference to the Dems instead of the 'Pubs, and you can clinch your argument. But showing me that “one guy did this” and “2 guys did that” isn’t the same as a whole political party doing it in concert. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/210 "2008-11-06T02:21:27Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Look. This is a moot point. I really don’t care who was racist in the past. DT was suggesting that racism is the current cornerstone of Republican. I just used that as an example of wingnut idiocy. > > Snowboarder clearly seems to have some major dog in the hunt where it’s important to him that Democrats are superior to Republicans in terms of their racial enlightenment. Whatever. Actually, I don’t. I am a registered independent voter, and have been since I turned 18. I don’t particularly care for either party, but I do not like racists. I’m just showing you that DT is not wrong; that racism is and has been a cornerstone of the Republican party for 40 years now, and that the Democratic party has not embraced the same ideology, for the most part, in more than 100 years. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/211 "2008-11-06T02:30:48Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Byrd’s a democrat and a former Klansmen. Yes, he is a Democrat and yes, he was a klansman. He doesn’t exactly run away from the fact. > [@](#): > > In 1997, he told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics, but to “Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don’t get that albatross around your neck. Once you’ve made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena.” > [@](#): > > In his latest autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a member because he “was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions.” > [@Robert Byrd](#): > > I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times… and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened. > [@](#): > > In the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s (NAACP) Congressional Report Card for the 108th Congress (spanning the 2003–2004 congressional session), Byrd was awarded with an approval rating of 100% for favoring the NAACP’s position in all 33 bills presented to the United States Senate regarding issues of their concern. Only 16 other Senators of the same session matched this approval rating. People change. Political parties can too. Hopefully the 'Pubs will finally throw this albatross from around their neck, just like Sen. Byrd did. But to deny the presence of the albatross, and the fact that it was hung there willingly by the party as a whole, is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/212 "2008-11-06T02:33:21Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Actually, I don’t. I am a registered independent voter, and have been since I turned 18. I don’t particularly care for either party, but I do not like racists. > > I’m just showing you that DT is not wrong; that racism is and has been a cornerstone of the Republican party for 40 years now, and that the Democratic party has not embraced the same ideology, for the most part, in more than 100 years. Well. You’re wrong on both counts and you appear impervious to reason. Senator Byrd, is a senior Democrat and a former Klansmen. There have been quite a few racist Democrats, especially in the south, and racism has been a big part of Democrat politics, and a lot more recently than 100 years ago. I’m a conservative, and I don’t like racism, either. Barry Goldwater predates the civil rights movement arguing for integration of the army, and fought for gay rights in the 50s 60s and 70s and his primary enemies were Democrats. Republicans weren’t any better as a whole than the Democrats and sometimes worse, but it was mostly a matter of geography and not party affiliation that seemed to determine a given polticians propensity to cultivate racism, your wishful thinking to the contrary no withstanding. You’ve been shown this. At this point clinging to your ignorance is your problem. I will give you a hearty “fuck you” though for saying claiming that racism is a current cornerstone of Republican ideology. The one with the problem here is you. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/213 "2008-11-06T02:38:31Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Well. You’re wrong on both counts and you appear impervious to reason. Senator Byrd, is a senior Democrat and a former Klansmen. There have been quite a few racist Democrats, especially in the south, and racism has been a big part of Democrat politics, and a lot more recently than 100 years ago. > > I’m a conservative, and I don’t like racism, either. Barry Goldwater predates the civil rights movement arguing for integration of the army, and fought for gay rights in the 50s 60s and 70s and his primary enemies were Democrats. > > Republicans weren’t any better as a whole than the Democrats and sometimes worse, but it was mostly a matter of geography and not party affiliation that seemed to determine a given polticians propensity to cultivate racism, your wishful thinking to the contrary no withstanding. > > You’ve been shown this. At this point clinging to your ignorance is your problem. I will give you a hearty “fuck you” though for saying claiming that racism is a current cornerstone of Republican ideology. > > The one with the problem here is you. You’ve shown nothing. You have no cites, no evidence, just assertions. I’ll shout your “fuck you” right back for being willfully ignorant. > [@](#): > > In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican method of carrying Southern states in the latter decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century by exploiting racism among white voters. I provided you with references, cites, and quotes for everything I said. You provide nothing. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/214 "2008-11-06T02:42:07Z")
Racism wasn’t a matter of Republican ideology, save for their inherent conservative reluctance to embrace change. They didn’t believe in racism, for the greater part, but were perfectly willing to accept whatever political benefits it might offer, and even to exploit racism in pursuit of power. The charge is not racism as such, but cynicism. They didn’t do it because they hated blacks, they did it because they hate losing. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/215 "2008-11-06T02:56:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Racism wasn’t a matter of Republican ideology, save for their inherent conservative reluctance to embrace change. They didn’t believe in racism, for the greater part, but were perfectly willing to accept whatever political benefits it might offer, and even to exploit racism in pursuit of power. > > The charge is not racism as such, but cynicism. They didn’t do it because they hated blacks, they did it because they hate losing. Yep. It was a way to garner votes. A means to acquire power. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/216 "2008-11-06T03:13:22Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > No, I didn’t say that the Dems were pure as snow. Why would I say that? Do you think that I don’t know what Jim Crow laws were? Again, what I said was I don’t know why you can’t read all the words I wrote, but you can see that I used the caveat “for the most part”, indicating most of the overtly racist politics of the Democratic Party that Scylla referred to took place over 100 years ago. I’d hardly call the active blocking of the Civil Rights movement a “minor” issue. In was a **large** concerted effort on the part of Southern Democrats, while the **national** party did **not** throw its weight behind any Republican candidates for office who _supported_ Civil Rights legislation (with few exceptions). > [@](#): > > And this shows that the Democratic party embraced a platform built on racism… how? Because the Democratic party (both state **and** national) did **not** work to oppose him at election time. > [@](#): > > That’s what you are arguing, but you do not show that. You show that some Democratic party members were/are racist, and that they may want to do racist things, but you have failed to show me that the Democratic party, as an institution, did/does/has done this. That they _refused_ to oust him from the party indicates that they were willing to put the _party_ above the ideals of desegregation. This is _equal_ to the GOP winking at some of the bigoted remarks tossed out in this campaign. > [@](#): > > I agree that That doesn’t mean “all”. Heck, it doesn’t even mean “most”. Can you provide a cite that says the Democratic party backed him on his policies, that they embraced his ideas at the national level; that they worked to implement similiar policies at the federal level? You ever listen to any of the recordings of JFK and LBJ talking to Southern Democratic politicians about Civil Rights? Both men are pretty clear that they’re _trying to hold back the Civil Rights movement_, and are just making as few concessions as they can for sake of ensuring votes in the Northern states. Now, maybe they’re bullshitting the people they were talking to, I don’t know. Certainly, Kennedy did _more_ for Civil Rights in death, than he did in life. > [@](#): > > Yes. I already did that in [post #180](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10404600&postcount=180) of this thread. Again, this is going to work better if you actually read the posts in the thread. Yet this is **no** different than what the Dems did for many years. Some might argue that the Dems were **worse** about it, since they allowed it to continue even after the national party had started its push for Civil Rights. There’s an _old_ tradition in Southern politics. A Democratic candidate will say, “I’m a \ Democrat, **not** a _Washington_ Democrat.” Meaning, up until fairly recently, that they would **oppose** anything to do with Civil Rights, Affirmative Action, etc. (Now, however, it has come to mean, for the most part, they’ll _not_ support Gay Rights or gun bans.) Ya think the _national_ party _didn’t_ know about this? Ya think that there might be a _reason_ that they chose to ignore this? You don’t suppose they might have had a, oh, I don’t know, _strategy_, in which they felt it was _more_ important to have Democrats in power than it was to push for the ideals the party was expousing? Which is worse, in your opinion? A strategy which is _somewhat_ overt (i.e. the party plank aims to go after Southern votes by embracing a _few_ of the issues which racists support) or one where the party quietly _ignores_ those who express such views? And do you think a man who uses the word “nigger” in private is less of a racist than a man who says it publicly? > [@](#): > > Yes, they did. In 1876, and for some decades after. That’s 132 years ago. In fact, the last thing I know of that would fit your bill was the Southern Manifesto, written by Strom Thurmond, in 1956. And even it only got signed by 19 Senators and 81 members of the House. Hardly a party majority, and hardly a Democratic Party platform. And _who_ enforced those laws in the 1950s and 60s? The _major_ party block from the South were Democrats. **Not** Republicans. Don’t forget that as the Federal government enacted Civil Rights laws, the Southern states attempted to block those laws. It was the state Democratic parties which spearheaded this in many instances. > [@](#): > > Again, you haven’t shown me anything even close to the Southern Strategy. Certainly some megalomaniacal Democratic party members used racism in a similar way, but you haven’t shown me that the party as a whole institutionalized it the way that the Republican party did. So, you don’t think that the Democrats **not** pushing out those members who either actively or quietly supported segregation _isn’t_ an example of how the Dems institutionalized racism? You have heard the term “carpet baggers” haven’t you? You do know that it derives from Northers moving en masse to the South after the Civil War to force their way into the political machinery in the South, don’t you? That _didn’t_ happen nearly to the same extent during the Civil Rights movement. The Dems tended to “helicopter in” people to engage in protests and the like, but they **didn’t** seek to toss out the Dems who opposed Civil Rights. > [@](#): > > Show me that with reference to the Dems instead of the 'Pubs, and you can clinch your argument. But showing me that “one guy did this” and “2 guys did that” isn’t the same as a whole political party doing it in concert. When the “2 guys” keep getting elected to the highest office in their state on the Democratic ticket (and it _wasn’t_ just “2 guys” nearly every other state, and every other office was the same way, and the South was majority **Democrat** up until the mid-1970s or later), then there certainly **is** a large scale political operation behind it. Do you think that the national party _refused_ to help re-elect those guys? Do you think that the national party _didn’t_ know what they were doing? They clearly did, and they were **tolerated** the same way one might tolerate a drunken uncle at a family reunion. Maybe the party didn’t formally come out and say, “We endorse everything he stands for” but they **damn** sure said things like, “We might not agree on somethings, be we can **all** agree that the most important thing is that we re-elect this Democrat.” ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/217 "2008-11-06T03:14:04Z")
Morons. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/218 "2008-11-06T03:18:42Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Yep. It was a way to garner votes. A means to acquire power. As was the Dems push for Civil Rights in many cases (though certainly not all). With Truman, its pretty clear he saw it as a way to get votes, though he clearly abhorred the worst examples of racism. JFK’s murky, there was probably some agreement on his part, but he didn’t push nearly as hard on the matter as he could have. I don’t think anyone believes LBJ saw it as more than an opportunity to garner votes, for the most part. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/219 "2008-11-06T03:42:15Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > As was the Dems push for Civil Rights in many cases (though certainly not all). With Truman, its pretty clear he saw it as a way to get votes, though he clearly abhorred the worst examples of racism. JFK’s murky, there was probably some agreement on his part, but he didn’t push nearly as hard on the matter as he could have. I don’t think anyone believes LBJ saw it as more than an opportunity to garner votes, for the most part. So you are saying that LBJ’s main motivation in proposing and signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was to garner votes for an election more than 3 years away? He delivered [this speech](http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/johnson.htm), not because he was trying to uphold his sworn oath of office, but because it was a politically calculated move that would hopefully get more votes? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946/220 "2008-11-06T03:44:55Z")
btw, yer other post is too long, and filled with too many uncited assertions and convoluted reasoning, too many inferences on your part, and just too many questions asking me to re-state my already clearly stated and cited facts. All you are doing is seeing that I said something, and then you shout back at me. If you have some real evidence, I’d be happy to take a look at it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-election-eve-freepers-hit-a-new-low/470946.md?page=10)