Sometimes it actually was a “coded racial appeal”. These things actually exist.
“Welfare queens” were a mostly made-up problem. Yes, they opposed affirmative action, and like Helms, sometimes exploited racial fears about the program for political gain. It’s just not credible to pretend that Republicans and conservatives never exploited racial fears and tensions.
Without making any assertions about individual Republicans or the Republican party, I can’t believe you’re claiming the bolded part. IME, the most virulent racists are often clueless about being racist.
You mean like Republicans do (e.g., GHWB in 1992) with Harry Truman?
What was/is it, then? :dubious: What was the attraction the GOP offered/offers that particularly resounds among Southern whites, and what was/is different about white views in that region? Really now.
“No, YOU’RE the real racists!” is hardly a winning argument. It’s reassurance for people who are already on your side, not a way to convince anyone else - in fact, it repels them, which is the opposite of what you guys need to do. So what else ya got?
So basically, the GOP supported civil rights, fought for civil rights, and then just said, “Eh, now we don’t believe in this anymore” as soon as they got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed.
Let’s imagine a future where the politics of abortion have changed so drastically that Roe is overturned and Congress passes a ban on abortion, with equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans in support.
Pro-choicers would feel pretty betrayed by the Democratic Party, wouldn’t they? So would pro-choicers then become Republicans? Some would, but not because Republicans had suddenly gone soft on abortion. They’d switch because with abortion off the table, those who cared a lot about reproductive rights would have to vote based on other things.
The same thing happened with civil rights. The South was Democratic ONLY because of racism. Once race was taken off the table, southerners recognized that their true home was the GOP.
That’s funny, I thought that the GOP changed a few of their views on small things like states rights.
Race was not taken off the table. The political references to race just became less overt. “Welfare queens” is coded language, even if you refuse to admit it.
When did the GOP favor welfare? Never. It was an existing GOP position. So was support for the 10th amendment.
Now if you’re saying that the Republicans found a way to appeal to white resentment, sure they did. And Democrats have been benefitting from minority resentment, and appealing to it much more explicitly, ever since.
Heck, deciding who and is not an authentic person of color is a mainstream Democratic thing. Democrats are free to use racial slurs at will against conservatives of color.
He admits it! Stop the presses!
Those dastardly Democrats, benefiting from bad memories and disapproval of trivialities like segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, and slavery.
If by “free” you mean “harshly criticized by senior party members”, then perhaps.
And it was easy, too!
Who criticized Bill Richardson for saying that Ted Cruz wasn’t really Hispanic? And how come the media didn’t make a big issue out of it, given that a third of Latinos vote Republican?
“Atwater, being a political axeman, had an already distorted view of politics.”
Waaay too glib and dismissive. If this is the best you’ve got, might as well admit you’ve lost the debate. Atwater was The Guy for Republican political strategy for years, and the party followed him because he won elections for them.
During the election, adaher was the poster child of Republican truthiness on these boards - everything he said was right, regardless of whatever eggheaded studies/statistics/articles/news items you could find.
Turns out he was almost 100% wrong about everything. And he did the smart thing by staying away for 3 or 4 months, so we wouldn’t rub it in so much.
Now, the OP asks: Will the Republicans ever figure out why they lost?
And our poster boy of Republican truthiness comes out of the woodwork to argue that everything we think/know/can see with our own eyes is liberal idiocy and that Republicans aren’t racist and yadda yadda.
So, to the OP: No, the Republicans will never figure out why they lost. They’re petulant children who have such a narrowed view of the world that anything that exists outside their tunnel of view doesn’t actually exist and is only liberal hallucinations. If they have to “rig” elections to still get voted in, that’s only because the American people don’t know what’s best for them. If 67% of Texans don’t approve of more abortion legislation, well back in the day 67% supported Jim Crow too and we should be on the right side of history for once, regardless of how we do it.
Giving him cites is useless. He doesn’t deserve cites, he’ll never read them, never accept them, and never argue in good faith.
Well, some Republicans are working very hard at figuring out why they lost. See here. Their problem is that they’re all under-40 technogeeks and the GOP is run hierarchically and the senior generation apparently won’t listen to them.
Of course the senior generation of the GOP won’t listen to the younger members. And it won’t matter what facts they ring to the table or how elegant and well-thought-out their arguments are; the senior GOP is like adaher and OMGABC: they know they are right and nothing will dissuade them; they are impervious to facts and logic.
It’s not just that they know they are right, the younger generation is coming to them and telling them “You and everything you believe is in is the problem”. That is obviously not going to go over well.
This has nothing to do with hand waving away things I don’t like. If your own cite starts out with, “While (s)he never mentioned race…”, and then continues with “…but this is what (s)he really meant!”, that is a good sign that your cite isn’t as “unbiased” as you would like to believe, and is merely inserting meaning into someone else’s words to prove to itself that someone else is what they want that someone else to be.
The fact that you don’t understand this is startling, to put it mildly.
Dude, you did no such thing. Seriously. Go back and look at the cites you provided. The claims of racism don’t hold up to scrutiny.
Look at the Bachman quote; she never mentioned race, only religion. Look at the Gingrich quote; he never mentioned race, only the poor. Look at the Romney quote; he never mentioned race, only Obama. So the question is if they never mentioned race, then how are those quotes racist? This is the most aggravating thing about liberals/Democrats. You claim racism, and to support your claims of racism, you bring up race when race was never an issue. You win for winning and win for losing.
Yet when confronted with actual quotes which are racist (or designed to enflame racial tensions), you either flat out ignore them or claim that they’re “true”.
Nuh-uh.
I don’t know, nor is it really pertinent.
You do know how old I am, correct? And that Romney won among White voters under 30? And that Romney actually did a bit better with Blacks under 30 than he did with Blacks over 30? Granted, it’s little consolation, but still.
I’m younger than most of the posters here -_-
From the article linked to by BrainGlutton:
You can continue to argue whether or not Republicans are actually racist - what you can’t (or shouldn’t) argue is that they are perceived as racist. Fix that or give up on winning national elections. Blame Democrats if you want, we don’t give a shit. Fact is the label is now there and you are going to have to take active steps to remove it. Calling Democrats race-baiters doesn’t count as a “fix”, it’s just juvenile whining.
"I’m younger than most of the posters here -_- "
Are you old enough to have seen the Willie Horton ad? Have you ever seen it? If not, you might want to take a peek.
Quote: OMGABC
Well, color me convinced.
Bachmann (correct spelling BTW): Not racist, just violently anti-muslim
Gingrich: Not racist, just hates disadvantaged Americans
Romney: Not racist, not at all. Just anti-intellectual
I’ve apparantly misjudged republicans badly and hereby promise to begin anew by labeling them bigots instead of racists.
SS
Could you expound on that point, please? How did they do it, and why?
And how are your bland *denials *that they have been appealing to racism consistent with the explanation you are about to give?