Most Democrats, including myself, will tell you that they have a much longer history of racism than do the Republicans. That's because, up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the conservatives of today were southern Democrats. They simply switched parties and became Republicans (see: Nixon's Southern Strategy. So, it's really not surprising that Scalise spoke at a meeting of neo-Nazis. Nor is it surprising that Louisiana Democrats are rallying to Scalise. If I were him, I'd tell anyone who is a southern Democrat to shut the fuck up.
The Daily Beast has an interesting piece on the folks who courted Scalise to come and speak at their little meeting. Check out this photo of their leaders...
Looks like some commenters from Kevin Baker's blog:)
Anyway, it's my view that Scalise doesn't really have much to worry about. His supporters and, indeed, a big chunk of the GOP base (especially in the South) would actually be more in favor of him speaking at a meeting like this. That's because many of them are dreaming of the South rising again and taking back what is rightfully their's.
Exactly what that is, I've never been able to quite figure out.
43 comments:
The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority
And your thoughts on this are...? Explain in your own words.
My own words?
Crap. As usual you take a few tenuous pieces and link them with smoke and mirrors. Using no logical thought pattern you then present a fait accompli as steak - but it's nothing more than a pile of steaming crap.
The NY Times smears Louisiana conservatives by saying they’re all David Duke
So, turns out maybe Steve Scalise didn’t speak at a white supremacist event after all
Looks like some commenters from Kevin Baker's blog
Childish shit-flinging is one thing - complaining when you get hit in the face with it yourself is another.
No, GD, explain, in your own words, why you think the Southern Strategy is a myth. Be sure to include (as your rambling, incoherent, and deeply steeped in denial link did not) an analysis of this:
http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy
You do realize that the Southern Strategy was supposedly to benefit Nixon - who for all of his faults was not racist. Reagan Democrats were not from the Old South.
You also realize that the Southern former-Dems that the Republicans were trying to pick up are mostly dead now. Your thesis depends on them having transmitted their racism intact on the the succeeding generations. Sounds like quite a failure of the education establishment if that did in fact happen.
And then maybe you can tell me why I am bothering to point out such obvious things to someone who has no intention of discussing this in good faith.
Mark you well know I won't do something that you yourself refuse to do. Your entire presentation of the southern strategy has been a comment and a link. That's what you get in return.
You want an essay, present something in your own words first.
Wow. What a cop out. I expected a lot more from someone who bloviates and foams at the mouth as much as you do, GD. You could have at least written a few sentences to go along with your link and explain, in your own words, why you agree with it. When did I say that I wanted an essay?
Sadly, your obsession with me makes you most irrational.
Again, if you refuse to 'write a few sentences' to explain why you agree with your own link, don't expect me to do what you won't.
And don't move the goalposts, you asked me to explain, in my own words. .... so yes, you were asking for an essay.
And the avoiding continues...
Things are just peachy when you are the critic, GD. But when there is any sort of possibility that you have to do what I do every day with my posts, it's a cowardly redirect back to me.
Why do you think the southern strategy is a myth, GD?
Oh, so it's more than a couple sentences again? Really wish you would make up your mind. ...
Who's avoiding? The guy who won't do more than post a link with a comment and then expects others to do more, or the guy who won't play your juvenile game?
Why do you think the southern strategy is a myth, GD?
Why do you think the southern strategy is inherently racist, Mark?
At least juris could answer the question, GD. Either you are being childish/adolescent or you are incapable of articulating yourself. For the imaginary people that you think read comments, either choice isn't really very good for you.
I offered evidence from a primary source stating how exactly the southern strategy was employed. I explained how former Dixiecrats are now Republicans and still every bit as racist. This was over two posts. If you disagree, explain why.
Why do you think the southern strategy is a myth, GD?
I offered a post showing why the southern strategy was a myth. I offered THE EXACT SAME LEVEL OF COMMENTARY that you did in support of your argument.
DO NOT EXPECT FROM ME WHAT YOU WILL NOT DO.
Help me out here, GD.
You accuse me of being wrong about a great many things. You chide me about my "lack" of commentary. You claim that my ideology is flawed in a great many ways.
Yet, when presented with an opportunity to illustrate that all of these things are true, you act like a baby and stomp your feet. This is your moment, GD. Show the five people that read comments that you are my better and can demolish what you claim are flimsy and flawed arguments.
Don't hide behind someone else's words. Use your own. Here is my contention again awaiting your response.
Most Democrats, including myself, will tell you that they have a much longer history of racism than do the Republicans. That's because, up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the conservatives of today were southern Democrats. They simply switched parties and became Republicans. See Nixon's Southern Strategy
http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/votetour10.htm
Primary source from Republican leadership supporting my contention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ
Except of course M you assign all racism to conservative Southern White men (switching from the Dems to Republicans). That overlooks the fathers of Progressivism, including TR and Wilson.
You are too small minded to grasp the bigger picture. That's why you play childish games with someone else rather than engage in a fact based discussion.
Except of course M you assign all racism to conservative Southern White men (switching from the Dems to Republicans). That overlooks the fathers of Progressivism, including TR and Wilson.
You are too small minded to grasp the bigger picture. That's why you play childish games with someone else rather than engage in a fact based discussion.
Don't hide behind someone else's words. Use your own. Here is my contention again awaiting your response.
Three sentences? That's your analysis? Then you provide links, which is,by the way, exactly what you are calling hiding behind someone else's words.
Again, once you provide what you expect me to, you will get what you ask for, not before. If you expect me to provide, 'in my own words', why I think the southern strategy is a myth then you first have to step up and explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, why you think it is valid.
That overlooks the fathers of Progressivism, including TR and Wilson.
Well, Wilson was for sure. How do you figure on TR?
I freely admit that Woodrow Wilson was a racist and I am ashamed that he was a Democrat. At the time, there were many Democrats that were racist.
See how that works? Now why can't you admit that this is the case with Republicans today?
GD, I have given a primary source from the Republican party admitting how the southern strategy worked. Since you can't seem to do any analysis of your own and seem to be incapable/afraid of opening yourself up to criticism (see: deja vu all over again), how about an equally high member of the GOP today admitting they don't still court racist voters? That they have rejected the Southern Strategy? A link would be just fine.
Better not use Newt "Food Stamp President" Gingrich, though:)
Oh, and feel free to respond here as well...
http://www.quora.com/What-sort-of-validity-is-there-to-the-Southern-Strategy-theory-and-is-it-still-being-used-today
It's a bigger pond over there, GD. Be careful!
GD, I have given....
But what you HAVE NOT given is something in your own words. Something that you still demand of me.
You have given a link, I have given a link.
You don't like my link? Fine. I don't like yours.
You want to ACTUALLY discus them, I'm up for that. But YOU have to do what you demand of me BEFORE I will - because I've played your silly games before, I won't again.
You have given a link, I have given a link.
Again, here is this.
Most Democrats, including myself, will tell you that they have a much longer history of racism than do the Republicans. That's because, up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the conservatives of today were southern Democrats. They simply switched parties and became Republicans.
Now, according to your rules of equality, you owe three sentences in response...which you have owed all along.
In addition, is Dan McGlaughlin a high ranking member of GOP strategy as Lee Atwater was? I produced a link and a primary source. Where is your primary source?
Well, Wilson was for sure. How do you figure on TR?
If you have to ask maybe you should instead just do some reading. But at least you don't feign ignorance about Wilson.
The point, which still eludes you, is that America has a rich history of racial prejudice not limited to the right. Ask a black conservative about the reception they get from liberals/progressives today.
Got any links about TR?
not limited to the right.
There is no doubt that Democrats have a much longer history of racism. In fact, up until 50 years ago, the Democrats enjoyed over 100 years of racial prejudice. Then, those same Democrats became Republicans and that's what we have today.
Now, why can't you admit that the conservative base is filled with former Dixiecrats who hate black people? The people who represent them use racial code words and dog whistle language to gain support. Part of the reason why there is so much hatred of President Obama in the South is because he is black. The simple fact that none of you guys will admit this illustrates how completely childish you are when it comes to taking responsibility for the ideology you support.
You have given a statement that says 'racists became republicans after 1964' and that 'it's not surprising' that today's republicans are racist since, obviously the racists of 1964 became republicans because the GOP is racist.
You then gave a less than 2 minute audio that has no prior or latter context that still does not support your point. Now, primary source or not, if it does not support what you claim it is irrelevant.
The most you can claim based upon that Atwater clip is that the so-called 'southern strategy' attracted southern racists to the GOP based upon other issues they felt were important after the only remaining party that was openly racist stopped being openly racist. In other words, the GOP attracted them based upon other issues AFTER the DEMS stopped being attractive to them.
Now, I guess that does mean that some Dixiecrats switched to the GOP after 1964. But THAT ISN'T ALL YOU HAVE IMPLIED. Based upon the 'meat' of this post you seem to imply that since some people in the south were racist in 1964 and switched from DEM to GOP FIFTY FUCKING YEARS AGO that it was because the GOP is racist then and still is today - something you claim without support.
Now, perhaps you can actually provide some support to that arguement.
The people who represent them use racial code words and dog whistle language to gain support.
Please tell me what these 'code words' and 'dog whistles' are.
Apparently I didn't get the fucking decoder ring with my membership.
Fucking idiot.
The Atwater link has the full audio if you care to listen to the context.
Please tell me what these 'code words' and 'dog whistles' are.
There are several examples of how the modern day GOP uses code words to garner support from their southern base which is still very much steeped in racial prejudice.
A recent example would be Newt Gingrich, a 2012 presidential candidate, calling Barack Obama a "food stamp" president.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXcyX8blbu0
People who are bigoted hear something like this and we get into the whole "lazy blacks" stereotypes.
Some codes are more overt. Remember this?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/sets/72157622225596987/
How many photos do you see that are racially prejudiced? The birther movement is rooted in racism.
Here are some other examples...
https://gopquotes.wordpress.com/category/racism/
Colin Powell explains very well how the code words work. You can't use the term "shuckin' and jivin" without conjuring up images of racism. Palin knew this and that's exactly why she said it.
Scroll through the list of examples, GD. This is the effect of the Southern Strategy.
I listened to the audio. It is a segment lacking context and it does not support what you say it does.
their southern base which is still very much steeped in racial prejudice
Really? So white southerners are racist just because you say so? Gotcha.
Your whole take on 'code words' is projection.
"food stamp" president
You hear food stamp and YOU immediately think 'black people'.
How many photos do you see that are racially prejudiced?
One.
The birther movement is rooted in racism.
No, it's not.
You can't use the term "shuckin' and jivin" without conjuring up images of racism.
Only if you base your assesment of, well everything, on race....
For crap's sake, the Osmonds had a song called shuckin and jivin.
So, let's see...a whole bunch of responses to what I said...nothing in the way of serious assertions or counter arguments of your own. Pretty much par for the course.
Uhhm, yeah. See you are claiming something is happening, you have to make the case that it is happening. Then if I disagree I have to counter your case.
I can't make assertions of my own because you would be expecting me to prove a negative.
As for countering your arguments. Well, they're pretty weak and lacking in substance, so replies to them are necessarily found to be short as well.
Think about it mark, you've asserted that the fop southern base is 'steeped in racial prejudice', without so much as one iota of support for that accusation. The birthed movement is based on racism? Accusation, check. Support, none.
You want a counter argument, you have to actually make an argument.
Look, GD, I get the fact that admitting fault is anathema to you (in this case, loads of racists in conservative party) so your defensive position is to accuse me of __________, usually that I am failing to make an argument:) I also get that you are pretty insecure about your views and are likely a tad afraid of me so putting yourself out there probably isn't a good idea...hence the lack of commenting in bigger forums like Quora.
What I don't get is why the big man with a gun can't fucking own it. I freely admit that Democrats have a much longer history of racism than do the Republicans. I also admit that today's Democrats are racist in their own way (helping out the "poor" black man, over sensitivity to racial issues to the point of analysis-paralysis, playing "ask a black man" when discussing racial issues). I struggle with this myself. So, why can't you admit the obvious? The South votes largely Republican and the old, white people there are still racist.
Honestly, I don't have to really prove anything here because black people know that your party is filled with a bunch of racists pricks so they don't vote for the people your support. Many others know it too. That's why our every increasing non white nation scares the crap out of GOP leadership. How do they keep the bigots at bay and still win? It's tough but they did do a pretty good job of it in the 2014 elections. Speaking of which...
The good news is that you have guys like Rand Paul who are starting to talk about institutional racism. And the younger people in your party aren't going to stand for the old white shouty bigots with their guns and confederate flags anymore. Within 20 years, they will all be gone and the conservative party in this country won't have any problem with racism anymore.
Perhaps you are one of these old white men who is clinging to some sort of dream that never existed. I don't really know and never will until you cease the obsession with me and write something that shows that you at least have convictions. Up until this point, your only conviction seems to be commenting on me.
Are you capable of anything else?
Wow, that was quite the rant. Feel better now?
Let's see....
Look Mark, your entire argument revolves around two distinct flawed contentions.
1. Fifty years ago the GOP captured the southern vote using racist 'bait'. The proof of this is that the modern GOP 'owns' the southern vote.
This is some sort of weird circular logic in that the 'proof' that the GOP is racist is that it got the south to vote for it. The 'proof' that the south is racist is apparently that they vote for the GOP.
2. The argument that since the DEMs were racists and popular in the south, that when the DEM's gave up overt racism and the south started voting GOP that therefore they HAD to be voting that way because the GOP were now the racist party.
This ignores, well lot's of things.
Like Occam's razor.
In your argument one must assume the GOP uses all kinds of super double secret squirrel stuff like 'code words', 'dog whistle's', perhaps secret decoder rings and other crazy tin-foil hat conspiracy stuff in order to secretly attract racists to vote for them. This stuff is so secret, so subliminal and so low level that only liberals can recognize it.
By the contrast, that argument never, even once considers that in the absence of the overt racism promoted by the DEM's, formerly one issue racist voters in the south would then be 'free' to vote for the party that reflects their other myriad political concerns.
Now, I will admit that this does indeed mean that former southern racist Democrats from the south switched to voting for the GOP. Don't pat yourself on the back. That's not the argument you've been asserting.
Fifty years is a long time. You've got a lot further to go to show that anything that happened back then is the current state of affairs. Like when you say "The South votes largely Republican and the old, white people there are still racist." And? How many old, white racists are there? If the GOP 'owns' the south - you are going to have to show much more racism than just 'old, white people'.
Racists voting for the GOP because they like the GOP's policy on defense or the economy does nothing to 'prove' that the GOP is the party of racism. Anymore than if the DEM's stopped being gun banners, gun owners switching to vote Democrat because they like their stance on social issues or the environment would prove that the DEM's are the party of 'gun nuts'.
And, lastly
Now, why can't you admit that the conservative base is filled with former Dixiecrats who hate black people?
Maybe because Dixiecrats are not any significant part of the conservative base - least of all outside the Old South? Oh, I know, you have a hard-on the size of Florida for good-ol-Southern-boys - but your predilections aren't my problem.
So Republican problems with Obama are all about Southern White male racists (60 years old and older). Good god man, seek help - you are incredibly detached from reality.
Maybe because Dixiecrats are not any significant part of the conservative base - least of all outside the Old South?
And your evidence is...where? In your ass?
Take a look at the top answer on this question...
http://www.quora.com/What-sort-of-validity-is-there-to-the-Southern-Strategy-theory-and-is-it-still-being-used-today
Care to retract your statement?
Holy crap Mark!
Do you not read?
That answer fails to complete the same thought that you do.
Yes, the south votes GOP. He states that as fact. Yippee.
Was he states as fact as well, but like you only provides conjecture, is that the south votes GOP because ::RACISM::
For both your arguments to be complete you have to follow through....
Do you or do you not believe the majority of the people in the southern U.S. to be racists?
Let's start with some basic facts...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/168059/whites-solidly-republican-recent-years.aspx
So, the GOP is made up of mostly white people. In looking at the map in the link, most of those people come from the South (the red states).
Next we have this..
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/06/nope-not-racist.html
And this...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/14/data-suggest-republicans-have-a-race-problem/
And this...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/
That's a lot of data to sift through so take your time before you respond.
Even with all of this, I freely admit that there are still plenty of Democrats that are racist. Several of them are in my family. Even though they voted for the president, some have said they would never want my daughter dating a black man. Of course, these are old, white men...just like the old white men of the South so there is some crossover.
In regards to your question, no, I don't think the majority of the people in the southern US to be racist. That's mainly because the South is becoming more ethnically diverse. Even those polls I show above show the trend moving downwards for the Republicans and that's a good thing. But if you are old, white and Republican living in the South (and this is a good chunk of the GOP base...recall average age of Republicans is over 50), the data shows that you are likely to have more racial bias towards blacks.
So, what I am wondering here is you, like Colin Powell and Larry Wilkerson, are going to admit that there still is a significant problem with race in the GOP?
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2013/01/where-have-i-heard-that-before.html
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2014/07/republican-my-party-is-full-of-racists.html
In regards to your question, no, I don't think the majority of the people in the southern US to be racist.
Then your argument that just showing the south voting for the GOP is somehow proof of the southern strategy being racist is false.
That's mainly because the South is becoming more ethnically diverse.
See, that's a statement you just pulled right out of your ass. The south is now and has always been the most ethnically diverse region of the US.
I live in one of the most ethnically NON diverse regions of the US and it votes Democrat by a wide margin. Hell, by your logic that makes the DEM's the racist party.
I freely admit that there are still plenty of Democrats that are racist. Several of them are in my family.
So I do understand that there are people in this world consumed with self-loathing. I just don't understand the mechanics of that mental condition.
On the other hand I do understand projection and how it alleviates self-hatred by placing the object of that contempt upon other people.
I've said this in the other posts, GD, but it appears that you really don't want to have a serious conversation. Rather, you would like to focus on me and my arguments. I think the reason for this lies in your continued refusal to admit fault and deep denial about the state of your party. I'm man enough to do that. You aren't.
Now, if you choose to change and lose the obsession with me, it would likely make for a more interesting conversation. Why don't you start by making a few brief comments on the state of race in this country. Do you think that racism is over in America? Why or why not? Is it all just race baiting by liberals? Why or why not?
Mark we are having a discussion about whether or not you are correct in stating that the GOP is racist.
My opinion on the state of race relations in this country is irrelevant.
The 'facts' and statements YOU make in support of your case are 100% relevant to the discussion.
As I've told you too many times to count - focusing on your statements in such a discussion if the POINT OF THE DISCUSSION.
You are the one refusing to have a serious conversation - hence your attempt to change the topic. It is also the tactic of one who feels they have lost the argument.
Well, I guess I have my answer:)
Yep, you can dish out statements but can't handle defending them.
About par for the course.
Post a Comment