Well, McCain did say during his campaign that Obama is a Christian and a good family man.
I understand the Arizona Republican party recently censured him for being insufficiently conservative.
I was thinking of that, yes, and that’s also a good example of the consequences there too. It’s pretty easy to find a particular republican who is actively against one or two of those things - but the whole list? At most, I’ve seen republicans who are dismissive about them, with a “We shouldn’t talk about those, they’re not important, lets talk about TAXES” attitude, namely with a libertarian bent. They are, of course, almost always cis straight white dudes who don’t see a lot of those issues mattering because they don’t effect them, and think a non-response is a good answer - when it’s not.
The OP is overly broad. It’s not just a group of people, but a group of people who get together based on their beliefs. And it’s not just a characteristic, but a belief that is in question. So how much should you assume that the beliefs of one person in a belief-based group match the rest of said group? It’s true unless they disavow that belief.
And in this context, that would not mean racism in general, but specific racist beliefs. You need to disavow them and say they said beliefs are not part of the reason you are together.
Since this is an unpopular set of beliefs, you also have to factor in lying. And that’s where I think people really differ. What is a reasonable amount of confidence that the belief group isn’t lying?
Personally, I would not assume you were racist because you were a Republican or even Tea Partier. But, all else being equal, I would be much more watchful of your interactions in situations where racism might be exposed. In other words, I’d think it’d be more likely that I’d find out you were a racist. And I think that’s a fair way to be.
Well, yes, it is true that every Republican POTUS since Ike, regardless of actions or policies, has been an enabler of racism – not just by being a Republican, but just by being a Republican POTUS.
I would divide the issue into four possible claims, in order from weakest to greatest.
- Group A contains members of type B
- Group A contains an enrichment of members of type B relative the the normal population
- Group A tolerates members of type B
- Group A welcomes members of type B
- Group A welcomes only members of type B
As an example of the categorization
- Current Democrats contain white racists
- Current Southerners contain more than their fair share of racists
- The Democratic Party of the 1960’s Tolerated Racists
- The Republican Party during the Southern Strategy welcomed white racists
- The KKK welcomes only white racists.
As a second example
- The current Christian religion contains Terrorists
- The current Muslim religion contains more than their fair share of terrorists
- Some Wahabist branches tolerate terrorism
- Salafist jihadism welcome terrorists
- Al Qaeda welcomes only terrorists
At step levels 4 and above I think you can call the organization to be the class. So I would say that Salafist Jehadism is a terrorist religion, and the Republican Party under the Southern Strategy was racist.
As far as individual members go, I would say that being in an organization of class 4 would indicate a likely tolerance of the type, (remaining a member of the Republican party during the Southern Strategy indicates a likely tolerance of racism), but for the group membership to indicate class membership it would need to be a type 5 relationship.
As far as the relationship of the current Republican party to white racism, I think the Republican party as a probably falls under category 3, while the Tea party is closer to 4.
Irregardlessitude!
I’m also going to practice what I preach and say I strenuously, strenuously object to the idea that the democrats don’t have any white racist in their ranks. I have plenty of family members who are racist democrats. Not nearly as bad as the racist republican family members I have, who literally talk about shooting blacks and homosexuals for fun over dinner, but still pretty damn racist, like thinking it’s appropriate to use the n-word to describe children.
You’re a Doper. Strike One.
No, they are not.
The Republican party has positive positions. Well, I assume they do. Everyone does.
People of good character who believe in these positive positions should not abandon their party to extremists.
Individually, no doubt. As a platform-writing party, not at all for decades now. They pretty much lost their last shred of value the moment they started even talking about things like a balanced-budget amendment or a flat tax.
Okay, I’ll take that as a challenge. I will review the most recent Republican party platform for positive positions. If I can find it.
That wouldn’t be fair, any group I belong to is perfect
Er… the polls that Chris Hayes cited that caused him to apologize after he rather foolishly declared
were based on polls of white Democrats and white Republicans.
I’m sorry if that wasn’t made clear.
To his credit, Chris Hayes offered and on-the-air apology for his mistake.
He also noted that he thought it interesting that he was slammed basically by two types of people. White Republicans and Blacks who were pissed at how he ignored how many white democrats are also racist.
It was found that white Democrats were roughly as likely as white Republicans to support anti-misecgentation laws, say that blacks “shouldn’t be pushy”, as well as viewing blacks as “lazy” and “unintelligent”.
Here are two of the people who convinced Hayes he was wrong to make such a statement.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/08/racism-by-political-party.html
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/08/19/are-racists-only-in-one-political-party/
Challenge accepted, but I claim the right to firmly plant the goalposts before play begins: They don’t count if they’re so vague or innocuous that they might appear on either or any party’s platform. Has to be differentiating policy positions. Then we just debate over their value.
Truth be told, I’m really stunned so many people were shocked at the idea of white democrats having as high a percentage as whites?
People have never heard working class whites(who usually vote democratic) make racist comments?
People have forgotten the way the whites of Boston reacted to busing?
Hell, I’ve seen plenty of liberal white people practically piss themselves in fear when a group of black men get on the subway.
Now, does that mean the Democratic Party is as “racist” as the Republican Party? Obviously not.
The Democratic party certainly doesn’t have the kinds of policies motivated by racism the Republican party does, nor do nearly as many Democrats make the kinds of naked appeals to racism that Republican leaders have.
But, keep that in perspective: In American history, white racism is the only kind that has ever really been a major problem. The racism of power matters a lot more than the racism of helpless resentment.
Also to keep it in perspective, racism isn’t the only egregious thing or characteristic that can be at issue in this thread. Anything generally agreed to be bad and attributable to a significant part of a group is fair game for discussion of how that reflects on the group and individual members, etc.
Likewise, with anything generally agreed to be good.
But you’re a member of that group, so it can’t be perfect. 
This is 2014.
The Democratic and Republican parties aren’t like other groups, they are fundamentally different from the local Ruritan Club, or the Sierra Club, or the Teacup Poodle Fanciers. They are effectively the only pathways to political representation in this country. If you want that representation, you vote for one of them, and hope your voice can be heard in their coalition. The only viable alternative is the other party, where you face the same problem. There are systemic barriers to new political parties that don’t exist for other groups.
That does change the equation, yes.
[QUOTE=Ibn Warraq]
To his credit, Chris Hayes offered and on-the-air apology for his mistake.
He also noted that he thought it interesting that he was slammed basically by two types of people. White Republicans and Blacks who were pissed at how he ignored how many white democrats are also racist.
It was found that white Democrats were roughly as likely as white Republicans to support anti-misecgentation laws, say that blacks “shouldn’t be pushy”, as well as viewing blacks as “lazy” and “unintelligent”.
Here are two of the people who convinced Hayes he was wrong to make such a statement.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/08/racism-by-political-party.html
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/08/19/are-racists-only-in-one-political-party/
[/QUOTE]
It’s interesting that the gap seems to widen a bit between 2002 and 2008, presumably an Obama effect. That said, these numbers do roundly dispute my assumptions. How, then, to explain the policy and rhetorical differences between the parties? Is it just that a party that’s 89% white can entertain some ugly racial rhetoric with no blowback, and a party that’s 60% white can’t?
I dispute that it’s the only kind that’s been a major problem (though it is the most damaging kind), but that’s a hijack.