I don’t wanna be too inflamatory, but its hard not to call it like I see it. Can anyone really see anything in the republican platform other than an elitist ideology aimed solely at advancing the economic interests of rich white males? This may be oversimplified, but whether they’re blocking civil rights legislation, hate crimes legislation, initiating broad tax cuts to benefit the rich, overturning affirmative action…and on and on, (and please don’t cite Colin Powel as a rebuttal, token black folks aren’t very convincing) it just seems hard to refute. Maybe they aren’t racist in the KKK sense, but it seems almost worse, like an indifference and a refusal to acknowledge this country’s diversity of interests, disparities of wealth, and racial inequalities. Not that the Dems are much better, but there are some real differences. What do you all think?
To the contrary, I could as well claim the Democrats are racist in their party’s platform – after all, it is they calling for racial-based favoritism, also known as affirmative action. Republicans seek racially-neutral job and educational benefit selection criteria.
The lesson, I think, is that reasonable people may disagree on how best to serve the country, and the interests of its citizens. Neither party seeks to be racist, but if you disagree with the propositions advanced by that party, you can certainly characterize them as such. They are not.
There are certainly racist Republicans, as there are equally certain to be racist Democrats. Neither party’s platform fairly deserves that label, however.
- Rick
Let’s see:
JC Watts
Clarence Thomas
Colin Powell
Condaleeza Rice
I don’t want to turn this into a Great Debate, but how come when Democrats appoint a diverse group of people it “looks like America,” but when Republicans do it it’s tokenism (note: I’m a Libertarian)?
Could you please list the specific parts of the Republican platform you find racist? It might help people answer your question.
Palandine, poor white female who’s looking forward to her tax cut, if it happens
It seems to me that the republicans try to fight what they think are unnecessary laws.
Aren’t you being a racist by assuming that only white males are rich, and that minorites cannot be hired based on their abilities, rather than racial quotas?
**
Yes, about 49% of the USA can, at a minimum.
**
**
“Civil Rights” is a loaded term. It can mean just about anything you want it to mean. Saying that some Republicans are against some “civil rights” measures doesn’t mean anything. What you really mean is that Republicans don’t believe in affirmative action, which has been one of the tentpoles of Democratic domestic policy for a generation. The argument there is whether committing widespread, government-mandated acts of discrimination against one group of people today is the correct remedy for widespread acts of discrimination against other groups in the past. I personally think that discrimination is an evil in whatever form, and should be abolished.
**
**
Again, “hate crime” is a loaded phrase. Actually, to my ear it’s loaded to backfire, since I always hear an echo of Orwell’s “thoughtcrime” in it. But being against adding additional penalties to actions that are already (in most cases) felonies due solely to some judge-decided evaluation of a suspect’s mental state does not mean that one is in favor of hate.
**
**
You’re contradicting yourself here. A broad tax cut would benefit a broad spectrum of people. A tax cut designed to benefit only the wealthy would be a narrow tax cut.
**
**
We’ve covered this somewhat above, but no one has “overturned” affirmative action. It’s still alive and well in the USA, though it’s actually had to try to justify its existence recently (not very well, to my mind, but I am admittedly biased).
**
**
Well, I could say that since the Republicans were the first to give an African-American one of the major Cabinet posts, that it clearly shows that Democrats are racist. I mean, come on! There are many more black Democrats than Republicans, and Clinton couldn’t pick one to run Treasury, State or Defense? He’s obviously a cross-burner.
**
**
First of all, the Republicans are an example of this country’s diversity of interests. We aren’t all bleeding hearts. Many of us think entirely differently on the important issues of the day.
Second, conservative economic policy is based on the idea that individuals are the best ones to decide what to do with their own money. The idea is that if you allow people to keep and invest more of the money they make, they’ll use it in the ways that appeal most to them. Republicans generally believe that those who get rich do so because they work extremely hard and put other things second in their lives. You seem to be assuming that the “disparities of wealth” are innate and immutable; ask anyone who worked for a dot-com over the past decade how quickly fortunes can be won (and lost).
And, to your third point, Republicans believe that creating massive federal programs, offices, bureaucracies and “initiatives” that classify every American indelibly by racial classification and determine economic winners and losers on the basis of those classifications is most definitely not the way to reduce “racial inequalities.” The way to reduce them is to give people opportunities and choices, not to tell them what to do.
You’re spouting the liberal line that you’ve been spoon-fed all your life and that you’ve never take one second to question, in even its tiniest aspect. You like to believe that you’re morally pure, so therefore anyone who disagrees with you on any matter of public policy is evil.
Well, you’re wrong. Citizens of good faith can and do disagree on substantive issues. Neither side has to be “evil.” Please, take the time to think about what you’re saying.
I follow your logic exactly.
Republicans want crimes to have the same penalties whether or not the crimes are motivated by hatred. Therefore Republicans hate nonwhites.
Republicans want to cut taxes on rich people like Bill Gates, Tiger Woods, and Bill Cosby. Therefore Republicans hate nonwhites.
Republicans want to end policies of racial preferences and set-asides. Therefore Republicans hate nonwhites.
You’ve convinced me! :rolleyes:
This is not a General Question, but I’ll put in a word anyway. Republicans don’t stand for advancing the “Rich White Male” demographic; rather, they tend to stand against government attempts to interfere in certain areas. This is not necessarily a Bad Thing. I, for one, feel that you can’t solve complex problems through simple legislation. I feel that by attempting to shift the “balance of power” through new laws, we are just creating more problems. Generally, the Republicans (and in general, those we call “Conservative”) are not so much against the ideas behind the legislation, but rather the fact that the government sees fit to impose their will on the people, rather than let the people work out for themselves what is best for everyone. Why, then, do you see so many Rich White Males as members of the Republican party? Simple. The Republican party most matches their own interests. The Republican party is a staunch supporter of Capitalism; Capitalism is the system on which these people made their money. Conversely, why do, say, teachers tend to be Democrats? Again, simple economics. The Democrats best serve their interests. If you are dependant on government for your livelihood, you’ll stick with the party that tends to favor more money for government programs.
So, to answer the OP: Is there any inherent racism in either party? No. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find any Republican legislation that involves any racial criteria. Members of all parties are members because the given party best serves their interests (or at least, they believe it does). You won’t find many 45 year old corporate executives who support the Green Party; no, you’ll find college students and others who don’t have the economic need to side with the Republican party.
Could you please explain to me how Affirmative action is racially based when White women have benefited equally, if not more, from this policy? This ignorant mis-conception is really starting to piss me off. If you’re against Affirmative Action at least get you facts straight.
Miguelon, for the reasons you outlined, I can see how one might think the Republican party is, at it’s core, racist. If not racist, at least less than interested in the ‘plight of the non-White male’ than Dem-o-crats™. People like Bill Bradley, a former Republican, help perpetuate that myth.
But he was wrong. That year 82% of Senate Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act (27 of 33), compared to 69% of Democrats (46 of 67). Twenty-one Democrats opposed the bill versus 6 Republicans. One of the Democrats voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, incidentally, was Albert Gore, Sr.
I’m a Republican and a Black female one at that. I’m neither proud nor ashamed of that fact. I don’t consider my political affiliation to be all that important. Make of it what you will.
Miguelon wrote
Yeah, right. Nothing inflamatory in that post.
This Miguelon is such a racist. He wants only White men to be rich and Blacks to be in prison and play a little basketball when on parole. And this moron learned to operate a computer! Look, guys, he talks!
Da Ace: Amen!
Miguelon: I doubt seriously you’ll read this far down, considering you’ve had your OP torn to shreds, but you have to look outside your room, and actually talk to other people. You sound like a Talk Radio Host.
Ain’t your fault, but this was a debate from the get-go.
Great? Probably not, the proposition is too stupid on its face. We’ll see if the folks in GD can salvage it.
Of course some of the Southern Democrats that voted against the bill were so angered by its passage, and so proud of the fight against it by Republicans like Goldwater, that they turned Republican themselves. Strom Thurmond, for example. It was the Republican party’s acquiring the anti-black, anti-civil rights, and pro-segregation positions that has given it the ascendancy it has had in the South since Nixon. To attempt to blame the present day party, or even the party of Johnson and Humphrey, for the evils of a group of soon-to-be Republicans is offensive, but pretty standard Republican behavior. JDM
This is really a Simpsons moment- “Don’t vote for the racist bastard Democrat Strom Thurmond- Vote Republican! Paid for by the Thurmond Republican Committee of South Carolina”
It’s just like the Sideshow Bob for Mayor campaign.
And remember early on in the presidential campaign when someone compared the underdog Gore to Harry Truman and the Bush folks dragged Thurmond out to say: “I knew Harry Truman, I ran for president against Harry Truman, you’re no Harry Truman” and nobody pointed out that the good Republican senator had run for president on a one issue platform: segregation. And, fifty years later, he’s still here. As is Jesse Helms. Track down some of Helms’ radio broadcasts from the civil rights era, if you want to read some chilling stuff. And don’t forget our oh-so-impartial Chief Justice, famous in his early years for helping to enforce white-only voting in the South (at least he’s not a judicial activist like those awful Warren Court folks). Maybe the idea for the checkpoints in Florida came from him- he’s got the experience.
Yeah, I’d say the Republican party has been the true bastion of civil rights (Sarcasm). JDM
Also go here: http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/outrage/gorelies.htm
for a bit more detail about Gore Sr.'s vote and positions.
JDM
“anti-black, anti-civil rights, and pro-segregation positions that has given it the ascendancy it has had in the South since Nixon”
Now obviously you don’t live in the south. So I would ask you to give a cite for your statement that being anti black etc would help in the south today. You can’t however because the south is not like that.
Using strom Thurmond is laughable as he doesen’t exactly represent the south of today.
As for asserting that the chief justice upheld white only voting. I would definately like to see a cite on that and where he was interpreting the law incorrectly. Judges should uphold racist bigoted whatever laws unless they are unconstutional. Its the legislatures responsibility for the morality of a law.
I am reminded of a Lyndon Johnson anecdote, to the effect that he was gloating with political allies about passing the Voting Rights act. Asked what he wanted to do next he (allegedly) said “Fly down and watch Strom Thurmond kiss every black ass in South Carolina!”
The Republican Party platforms cannot possibly be racist, at least in no overt, unmistakable way. It would not be tolerated, political suicide of the first order. Not simply how much it would cost in terms of the minority vote, they don’t have that much to lose. The ordinary, run of the mill white guy will not vote for a blatant racist. It is no longer even remotely acceptable.
The Republicans only represent an impediment to the progress of racial equality because they are inherently conservative, conservatives resist change, period. I believe that many Republican policy directions have a negative effect on minorities, but I do not believe that is its intentional, a result of a concious policy of racial animosity.
As to affirmative action: I cannot but agree that race-based entitlements are a terrible idea. Give admission advantages, etc., based on economic need and you will provide for the minority. But don’t expect the Republicans to run to clasp this idea warmly to its bosom, because its a more fundamental conflict to a Republican than mere ingrained racism. It involves a flow of money to persons who don’t have any, a sight that withers the Republican soul like a worm on a griddle.
They just keep electing him, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
JDM
Hey, Bricker. Hate to break the news to you. But, there’s just been a terrible downturn in the economy and the only job left is a position on the Chicago Bulls. The two applicants are you and Michael Jordan. If you don’t get the job, you’ll be out starving on the street. ('Cause we’ve done away with that welfare state crap now.) But, don’t you worry now, they don’t practice affirmative action there. What, you still say it’s still unfair? But, why, we are giving both of you an equal chance. Geez!!!