(bolding mine) Right there, you are admitting that racism existed as a party platform in the Dems less than 100 years ago.
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’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
Meaning, quite clearly they did not completely cut their ties with the Democratic party.
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. 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 should really follow your own advice here.
On the same page, in the text, not in a summation box:
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.
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.
Given that he served as governor up until 1967, 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.
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.
Not nearly as much as you.
And you’re prepared to show where the GOP party platform has explicitly embraced racism, I’m sure.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
Yes. I already did that in post #180 of this thread. Again, this is going to work better if you actually read the posts in the thread.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, he is a Democrat and yes, he was a klansman. He doesn’t exactly run away from the fact.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Because the Democratic party (both state and national) did not work to oppose him at election time.
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.
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.
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 <insert Southern state here> 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?
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.
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.
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.”
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, 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?
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.