So if Republicans made an effort to remove Fulbright’s name from them, would that be something Democrats would support? You know, since they are supposed to be booting their racists out and all.
You don’t realize that “State’s Rights” is a dog whistle for “let’s keep those uppity blacks in their place”? After a generation of the Southern Strategy you honestly have to wonder why your party isn’t getting black voters? And after eight + years of “OH MY GOD THERE’S A BLACK GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!” you’re befuddled as to why the one prominent Republican who treats Obama with respect has decent polling numbers with black voters?
How would I know and why would anybody care? The issue here isn’t historical racism - there is plenty of racism in politics throughout U.S. history. The issue here is that Democrats have embraced black voters and issues that matter to them, and in recent years Republicans are treating them with more and more contempt. I have certainly noticed that Republicans try to respond to this by talking about racism in the Democrats’ past, but it doesn’t work because that doesn’t match up with the Democrats’ current policies. And for that matter the argument that Democrats honor segregationists today is just ludicrous because that’s much more common in Republican-leaning states.
The 10th amendment is a “dog whistle”? I’m not saying it’s not, but if it is, there’s no room for common ground. Republicans will not renounce the Constitution. Actually, it’s more than just renouncing the Constitution, the sovereignty of the states is one of the basic tenets of our system of government.
And that’s why Republicans aren’t going to do better with black voters any time soon. Almost none of them will even acknowledge what the issues are in the first place. This hasn’t been something Christie has engaged in, but his positive qualities aren’t enough to make it all disappear.
The reason I brought up Fulbright is because Democrats did in fact win the black vote by huge margins even as the old segregationists remained members in good standing of the party. Thus my objection to the idea that Republicans need to do some kind of purge of sorts to win black voters. I think that’s pure nonsense, because Democrats didn’t have to do it.
If Republicans embrace black voters and the issues that matter to them, I’m sure they can get away with having Michelle Bachmanns, if the Democrats could be forgiven for George Wallace, JW Fulbright, John Stennis, etc.There is no one in the party that is anywhere near that class of hateful to justify the need for a purge.
Furthermore, let’s extend this to gay voters. Robert Byrd was a homophobe and very loud and proud about his homophobia. That never caused gays to abandon the Democratic Party.
Clear this up for me. Are you saying that the 10th amendment must be renounced, or that that’s not the real issue?
Different times. The parties are more uniform now, and there is less in the way of regionalism.
Maybe. But I think the voters they have now are not going to allow it. And again: over time the Dixiecrats either moved to the Republican Party or were marginalized in the Democratic Party. You may not want to call that a purge, but the effect is similar.
The issue is policies, not “hate.” If these people didn’t represent mainstream Republican thought, it would be a different situation. But they do.
Of course not- the Republicans were even more homophobic!
I’m saying you’re not seeing the issue or you’re avoiding it. The whole States Rights’ thing has a sordid racial history, and if all you can say about it is “It’s fine because of the 10th Amendment!” it’s unlikely you’re going to grasp why that racial history is a problem for Republicans.
Fulbright (and other formerly segregationist Democrats) generally repudiated their old views. Fulbright, in fact, later voted for Civil Rights bills and opposed Nixon’s pro-segregation Supreme Court nominees. And they’re all dead anyway. And your “huge margins” are wrong- there were majorities before Civil Rights, but the “huge margins” (like 80-20 and higher) didn’t come until the Southern Strategy was in full force.
Bachmann is alive, kicking, and celebrated as a conservative hero. The Democrats you mention are dead. Repudiating Bachmann, King, et al is just a beginning, but it’s absolutely necessary if the Republicans actually want to get even a few more black votes. You’re still not getting it.
Byrd is dead. Republican homophobes are alive, in office, and celebrated. You’re not getting it.
The Republicans problem with regard to attracting more black voters is not simply one of having a few old token racists with party ties. It goes much, much deeper than that.
So, no, they cannot simply “get away” with having a few token racists, if a large portion of their membership still espouses policies that are not popular with minority communities, and if they still use the dog-whistles of racisim on a regular basis.
Think of it like this- you marry a person of a different race. You have two uncles- Uncle Ron is a massive racist and Uncle Don is a nice fellow, though he’s said some racist things in the past. Don welcomes your spouse with open arms, though when he/she is not around he still occasionally slips up and uses a racial slur, but apologizes when you call him on it. Uncle Ron insults you, cuts you out of his life, and doesn’t talk to you for 20 years.
So 20 years down the road, they’re both in old folks’ homes. You still visit Don, and he’s still a nice old fellow who says inappropriate things sometimes and apologizes. You don’t visit Ron, but you get a letter from him asking you to visit. Would you visit if he didn’t apologize to you and your spouse for his past behavior? Most people wouldn’t- they would expect a pretty large display of regret and a big apology to both of you before they’d allow him back in their lives.
So it is with the two parties- the Southern Strategy was a big deal, and it alienated more than a generation of black voters (in general). The massive personal disrespect by many Republican office-holders that goes unchallenged and unrepudiated by party leadership adds to that. Even if the Democratic party is far from perfect on this, they’ve been way better than the Republican party. Don has been much kinder than Ron. The Republican party needs to go far to the other side on this issue if they want to have a chance with black voters nationally. They need to admit all their past transgressions, apologize for them, and repudiate the parts of the party that refuse to change. Otherwise, it won’t happen.
Yes, treating African-Americans like Americans would alienate the hardcore White racists. Working for equitable immigration reform would do the same to the hardcore xenophobes. (There’s a lot of overlap between those groups.)
The Republicans would have to work very hard to win Black (& Latino) votes & the effort would probably alienate too many of Their Own. So they won’t bother.
Republicans can change, but so far they have refused to do so and refused loudly and publicly.
It has been the slow continual drip drip drip of intolerance that has driven minorities away. No one event, issue, or person can alter that. Only a long, sustained, public accumulation of proven differences can change perceptions.
Pointing to history is a killer for your side. Yes, the Democrats had a history of Southern intolerance. Then then spent 40 years driving a long, sustained, public campaign of atonement. That is what people today remember. The Republicans have spent the last 40 years in a long, sustained, public campaign of intolerance. That is also what people today remember. As long as you refuse to acknowledge that history you are digging your hole deeper.
iiandyiiii correctly notes that state’s rights is code for oppression of minorities. Your side is delusional if they think they can make it mean something else while simultaneously waving the state’s rights banner to further oppress minorities. The 10th Amendment has nothing to do with it, except to provide a meaningless slogan to justify further intolerance. There is no common ground on intolerance if it’s the core of what you stand for.
Your entire argument so far is “but the Democrats…” First, your argument is historically delusional and we’ll keep pointing that out to you whenever you make it. Second, even if there were a reality in which it were true, it would be of minimal importance compared to what the Republicans actually do today and every day.
If you want change, change yourself. The Democrats won’t save your ass by doing it for you.
And doesn’t that make them the real racists?
Aren’t “their own” becoming increasingly irrelevant?
Exactly. George Wallace is ancient history, and highly irrelevant for the vast majority of voters (black or otherwise)…and, at the end, he publicly repudiated his earlier stances and behavior. If voters (black or not) under the age of 40 even know what a Fulbright Scholarship is, it’s highly unlikely that they know that it’s named for a Senator Fulbright, who fought against the Civil Rights Act.
OTOH, people like Michele Bachman are current events (as much as we might wish that they, too, became history, at least on the national political stage), are among the most vocal, visible members of the Republican party on the national stage, and continue to say things that alienate people who aren’t white Christian ultra-conservatives.
The Real Racists only on Fox! Tuesday nights at 9pm
If you define them as old white voters, yes. White voters in general? No. It’ll always be a large bloc and we don’t know that these kinds of demographic and partisan identifiers will stay the same in the future.
By dint of dying off (or, at least, shrinking as a demographic group), yes, but it’s not happening overnight.
Relax, adaher. There are probably still almost as many anti-black racially motivated white voters as there are black voters. Do you want to deny them representation?
Don’t like that the Democrats get the cool people and you get the white supremacist vote? Well, maybe you need to try to lose the two-party system!