# The GOP and Race **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 29, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522 "2013-08-29T19:06:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Randvek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Randvek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randvek)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/261 "2013-09-08T07:20:28Z")
And what percentage of scientists vote Republican? You know, the smartest of the smart, **adaher**? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/262 "2013-09-08T08:10:05Z")
I’m sure most are Democrats, but they are no more qualified to judge the merits of politicians than a non-high school graduate. ---
**Author:** ![Conservian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c57346/32.png) [@Conservian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Conservian)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/263 "2013-09-08T12:16:46Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Unemployment numbers are being calculated in the same manner they have been for the past several decades. Calculations are not in dispute, only the standard which is currently considered ‘official’.- U-3. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/264 "2013-09-08T13:00:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > [scientists] are no more qualified to judge the merits of politicians than a non-high school graduate. Two questions for you, **adaher**. (1) In national elections, is it the politician or his party and platform that are more relevant to a voter? (2) Is the quoted statement of yours true, or is it something you found convenient to pretend to believe? (Warning: Each of these questions has a correct answer; the correct answers are clear to most intelligent people; if you answer incorrectly we’ll be certain you cannot be simultaneously intelligent and truthful.) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/265 "2013-09-08T13:16:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s what Democrats want to believe. Strange that Democrats considered themselves the virtuous party even when they had the racists locked down through direct appeals to racism, now the REpublicans are evil because they supposedly used “coded” language, even though they used the same rhetoric they always had. “Welfare queens”, claims that minorities are taking the jobs due to racial quotas, and the like are not the same rhetoric they were always using. The rhetoric changed in the decades following Civil Rights. Feel free to continue to believe the Republicans never tried to appeal to racists- I suppose all those code-words (and the uncoded words of those like Helms) were just coincidence. > [@](#): > > It’s the old Democrats’ Stupid Strategy: anyone the Republicans win is stupid, and Republicans won them by appealing to their stupid, while Democrats took the high ground. It may not help Democrats win, but it does make them feel good about themselves in losing. This is incoherent, and doesn’t appear to be related to any claims I’m making. And I think you’re implying that black people are dupes for the Democratic party, which seems to be what you’re (falsely) criticizing me for. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/266 "2013-09-08T14:44:52Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That is an absolutely fantastic line. Bravo. Thanks! That’s high praise. I was a little worried that it was over the top for a non-Pit forum, but figured that since it attacked the post(s) not the poster, I’d be ok. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/267 "2013-09-08T16:56:18Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Two questions for you, **adaher**. > > (1) In national elections, is it the politician or his party and platform that are more relevant to a voter? > > (2) Is the quoted statement of yours true, or is it something you found convenient to pretend to believe? > > (Warning: Each of these questions has a correct answer; the correct answers are clear to most intelligent people; if you answer incorrectly we’ll be certain you cannot be simultaneously intelligent and truthful.) 1. The politician 2. The statement is absolutely true, although judging by your warning it would appear you disagree. Apparently you think that being smart makes one generally superior no matter what the subject to one less educated and intelligent. But in the real world, outside of the TV representations, well educated people tend to be specialists with nothing more than layman’s knowledge of anything outside their field. If politics tended to come down to one issue, say climate change, then absolutely I’d think climatologists were the most likely to pick the best President. But it doesn’t. Climatologists understand little of fiscal issues, crime, national security, or the 100 other things that are important to voters. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/268 "2013-09-08T17:00:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > “Welfare queens”, claims that minorities are taking the jobs due to racial quotas, and the like are not the same rhetoric they were always using. The rhetoric changed in the decades following Civil Rights. Welfare queens did not emerge until after the Civil Rights Act, and again, it was an issue that Republicans turned out to be right about, thus the Democrats adopting the substance of Republican welfare policy if not the rhetoric. > [@](#): > > Feel free to continue to believe the Republicans never tried to appeal to racists- I suppose all those code-words (and the uncoded words of those like Helms) were just coincidence. They did try to appeal to racists, which in the 1970s pretty much meant most of the South. But they didn’t tailor their policies or rhetoric to do it, they tailored the message. “You may not like our history, southerners, and we don’t agree with you on segregation, but we do agree with you about welfare, busing, law and order issues, and quotas.” > [@](#): > > This is incoherent, and doesn’t appear to be related to any claims I’m making. And I think you’re implying that black people are dupes for the Democratic party, which seems to be what you’re (falsely) criticizing me for. What I meant is that whenever Democrats lose, you get excuses about how Republicans appealed to baser emotions, usually ignorance, but also fear and hatred. That’s why I find the thread wondering if Republicans will ever figure out why they lost so amusing. Democrats never feel that they lose, only that elections are stolen from them by lies, fearmongering, and base appeals to the rubes. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/269 "2013-09-08T17:50:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Welfare queens did not emerge until after the Civil Rights Act, and again, it was an issue that Republicans turned out to be right about, thus the Democrats adopting the substance of Republican welfare policy if not the rhetoric. No, they were wrong also. And it shows why you they have a blind spot in statistics and polling. > **[Return of the ‘Welfare Queen’ | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/weflare-queen/index.html)** > > Reagan’s Welfare Queen story is still shaping presidential politics, but was the infamous story true? > [@](#): > > A database search of all major newspapers turned up the first use of the term in 1974, when a woman in Chicago was given the label. > > Two additional women were also dubbed welfare queens in subsequent years by local newspapers. Both were based in Los Angeles. One collected $377,458 in welfare benefits in seven years and lived in a house with a swimming pool. She did drive a Cadillac, along with a Rolls Royce and Mercedes Benz, Gustafson discovered. > > Reagan merged the identities of all three and exaggerated their abuses, Gustafson says. > > “Reagan twisted them around and created one character, and tried to leave everyone with the impression that it was happening all over the place,” Gustafson says. “It’s totally false that these women typified welfare recipients.” > > While others believe the Welfare Queen will be dethroned, Gustafson remains unconvinced. > > “I would love to think that will happen,” she says. "But I’m hearing politicians say poor people need to learn how to work or that we need to drug test welfare recipients – it makes me think that even if people aren’t directly invoking the Welfare Queen stereotype, they are indirectly. > > “The ghost of the Welfare Queen is still lurking.” > [@adaher](#): > > They did try to appeal to racists, which in the 1970s pretty much meant most of the South. But they didn’t tailor their policies or rhetoric to do it, they tailored the message. “You may not like our history, southerners, and we don’t agree with you on segregation, but we do agree with you about welfare, busing, law and order issues, and quotas.” As the OP case tell us, that “no show” appeals to racists too. > [@adaher](#): > > What I meant is that whenever Democrats lose, you get excuses about how Republicans appealed to baser emotions, usually ignorance, but also fear and hatred. That’s why I find the thread wondering if Republicans will ever figure out why they lost so amusing. Democrats never feel that they lose, only that elections are stolen from them by lies, fearmongering, and base appeals to the rubes. Not the case, those things are important factors, and having a bad candidate is one. **Having to deal with the fear-mongering from the base is a problem now for the Republicans**. Right now in Hispanic TV they are discussing why the immigration reform is stalled in the House, it is producing yet again an ugly image for the Republicans that all Hispanics and Asians with relatives with immigration issues can see. ---
**Author:** ![Conservian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c57346/32.png) [@Conservian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Conservian)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/270 "2013-09-08T18:33:37Z")
[quote=“Miller, post:253, topic:667522”] That soft popping noise you just heard was the last, tattered shreds of your credibility disappearing in a puff of a smoke.[/QUOTE First understand that the scientific research program of “Intelligent Design” investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such. Second, if you’re hearing noises, it could be affecting your ability to focus. You may want to see an ear, nose & throat specialist for that.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/271 "2013-09-08T18:41:28Z")
> [@Conservian](#): > > First understand that the scientific research program of “Intelligent Design” investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such. Bullshit. Is that how they’re trying to hide it now? And you took the bait. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/272 "2013-09-08T19:03:27Z")
IOW, “God did it” isn’t their conclusion; it’s their _premise_. \*\*Conservian \*\*has now admitted as much even if he doesn’t realize it. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/273 "2013-09-08T19:20:07Z")
> [@Randvek](#): > > And what percentage of scientists vote Republican? You know, the smartest of the smart, **adaher**? I don’t know a single scientist who wouldn’t cringe at that description which is as foolish as thinking that Leonard and Sheldon are accurate depictions. They’re certainly more knowledgable in certain areas than most, but that hardly means they’re “the smartest of the smart”. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/274 "2013-09-08T19:24:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > IOW, “God did it” isn’t their conclusion; it’s their _premise_. \*\*Conservian \*\*has now admitted as much even if he doesn’t realize it. He’s probably going to argue something like “they don’t say ‘God did it’ they say that it was too complex to happen on it’s own so there had to be a designer which could have been a being we might call ‘God’ or it could have been aliens or time travel.” Even so, that’s at best a hypothesis not a theory as understood by science. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/275 "2013-09-08T19:50:16Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Why? Would you have been a Republican in 1964 because most racists sided with the Democrats? Or would you have remained a Democrat and just considered yourself part of the progressive wing of the party? The latter – back when both parties **had** their conservative and liberal wings. The Southern Strategy, and the rise of movement conservatism, ultimately put an end to that. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/276 "2013-09-08T20:05:27Z")
> [@Conservian](#): > > FYI: Intelligent Design is science. Science requires evidence. From [RationalWiki](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligent_design): > [@](#): > > \*\*Scientific evaluation > > Method\*\* > > An outstanding issue of intelligent design is what mechanism the hypothesized “designer”[14] uses to initiate design diversity. According to the theory of evolution, this mechanism is genetic mutation resulting from environmental stresses and point mutations caused by the cellular chemical environment. As of this time intelligent design supporters have yet to offer a plausible mechanism to which diversity can be attributed that differentiates from the mechanisms listed by the theory of evolution. As such the intelligent design proponents have yet to offer any empirical evidence to support the claim of a designer. > > **Evidence** > > ID proponents such as Michael Behe promote theories such as “irreducible complexity” as evidence for their ideas. Irreducible complexity posits that there are certain organs and structures found in nature that have no convincing gradual evolutionary pathway, and are too complex to have come about in whole by chance. These ideas are hotly disputed (or dismissed as non-science) by scientists, but regardless of their truth value they do not constitute evidence for an intelligent designer. Proponents of intelligent design make an assumption unwarranted by the evidence in that their logic goes along the lines of “The origins and diversity of the species cannot be accounted for by evolution and natural selection alone, therefore there must have been a designer involved.” > > The very lack of positive scientific evidence suggesting that there is a designer involved in creating life raises the question of how the design hypothesis came about. Opponents of the design hypothesis would suggest that proponents are religiously motivated, and that their ideas are not about understanding how life came to exist but rather about promoting a particular religious world view as espoused in the Wedge Document. > > **Periodicity** > > There has also been no attempt to specify the periodicity of the miraculous interventions by the hypothesized “intelligent designer”. In other words, the hypothesis does not state if the miraculous interventions take place annually, monthly, daily, or only when the designer feels that miraculous intervention is necessary. > > **Falsifiability** > > ID proponents have yet to demonstrate that their idea is even remotely scientific by identifying what they believe could falsify it. > > In fact, we await with interest any submission from supporters of this concept which would elevate it to the realms of science. Our article on what could disprove intelligent design remains embarrassingly void of valid arguments. > > **Abiogenesis** > > Slightly better educated supporters of ID sometimes complain that the theory of evolution lacks any mention of, or generally accepted hypothesis about, abiogenesis. It is of interest, however, that versions of ID which pretend to be science also lack any such mechanism - though the unstated assumption is that it was the work of god. > > The objection also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, which does not propose an explanation of how life started. It merely describes what happens after some form of life is extant. [The Wedge Document:](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wedge_Document) > [@](#): > > The **Wedge Document** is a publication of the Discovery Institute which outlines their goal to bring the “controversy” over “evolution” versus “intelligent design” into the public arena, in a way politically contrived to get less informed members of the public to side with the idea of “teach both sides” (one side being science, the other religion). It is the smoking gun that demonstrates that “intelligent design” is “creationism” in a thin disguise. > > Rather than give an interpretation of the Wedge Document which gave rise to the Discovery Institute’s 1998 wedge strategy, it has been reproduced here in full so that people can reach their own conclusions. A small amount of emphasis has been added. > > Because of the nature of this document some have claimed that it must be a hoax; this is most definitely not the case. The Discovery Institute has not only acknowledged authorship of the document but has also defended its content.[1] A scan of the original document is also available in PDF format.[2] The introduction to this document also appeared on their website in 1996, as archived by [archive.org](http://archive.org).[3] > > The story of how it came into the public domain can be found in this Seattle Weekly newspaper article.[4] > > Although the Discovery Institute acknowledges the authenticity of the document, they want to dismiss the supposed Wedge Document “conspiracy theory” as a “pseudo-intellectual urban legend”: > > > [@](#): > > > > It is in the context of our concern about the world-view implications of certain scientific theories that our wedge strategy must be understood. Far from attacking science (as has been claimed), we are instead challenging scientific materialism – the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone. We believe that this is a defense of sound science. > > —[5] > > However, many of those who use the Wedge Document to criticize the Discovery Institute maintain that it demonstrates the existence of no conspiracy beyond that which the document itself clearly spells out. They further maintain that reading the document is the best way to understand what it says. The full document can be found below. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/277 "2013-09-08T20:09:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Welfare queens did not emerge until after the Civil Rights Act, and again, it was an issue that Republicans turned out to be right about, thus the Democrats adopting the substance of Republican welfare policy if not the rhetoric. > > They did try to appeal to racists, which in the 1970s pretty much meant most of the South. But they didn’t tailor their policies or rhetoric to do it, they tailored the message. “You may not like our history, southerners, and we don’t agree with you on segregation, but we do agree with you about welfare, busing, law and order issues, and quotas.” > > What I meant is that whenever Democrats lose, you get excuses about how Republicans appealed to baser emotions, usually ignorance, but also fear and hatred. That’s why I find the thread wondering if Republicans will ever figure out why they lost so amusing. Democrats never feel that they lose, only that elections are stolen from them by lies, fearmongering, and base appeals to the rubes. Dear seeker of Truth, Would you care to post substantive evidence of these claims? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/278 "2013-09-08T22:54:12Z")
How’s about we first prove the central claim of this thread, that Republicans are racists. The original evidence offered was that they didn’t participate in the MLK speech anniversary program. Pretty tepid stuff. It hasn’t gotten any better in the last 6 pages. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/279 "2013-09-08T23:15:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > How’s about we first prove the central claim of this thread, that Republicans are racists. Uh, no, the OP actually took care of that. > [@NotDeadYet](#): > > No way can it be said that “all republicans are racists” – because it simple isn’t the case. > [@adaher](#): > > The original evidence offered was that they didn’t participate in the MLK speech anniversary program. Pretty tepid stuff. It hasn’t gotten any better in the last 6 pages. You have not gotten more accurate either. Most, and even I made the point that this was a political disaster, it does not mean that all Republicans are racists, only that they are not doing much in the area of cleanups of racist spills [del]in the supermarket[/del] and they go for very dumb talking points to explain their absence from the celebration. > [@](#): > > From civil rights leader Julian Bond, on why there were no Republicans at yesterday’s 50th anniversary of the March on Washington: > > > [@](#): > > > > “They asked a long list of Republicans to come, and to a man and woman they said no.”…Bond did credit Cantor for trying hard to find a replacement speaker, but, ultimately, the leader was unable to find a single Republican to attend the event. As Kevin Drum puts it, “Even with Eric Cantor twisting arms he couldn’t find a single Republican willing to attend. I guess they were all afraid that Fox News would televise it and some of their constituents might find out they were there.” I can grant you that it is likely that it was not due to any racism from the part of the leaders, but this sounds to me as just fear bordering on panic of the ones refusing to attend. They are protecting their political careers in front of the good chunk of racists that would get inconvenient “photo opportunities” or to allow them to compile a list that the racists among the Republicans would use as a guide to vote out the “impure” ones in the next primaries. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522/280 "2013-09-08T23:17:59Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Except a lot of pro-lifers and supporters of the various described policies are women. > … > > Generally speaking, the voting difference between white women and white men is only about 4 percent. I certainly concede the first part, and did not know the second part. My question–“cite?”–isn’t intended to suggest you’re lying but is more because I’d like to learn more about this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gop-and-race/667522.md?page=15)