Necrotrends: The GOP Was The Party of Civil Rights

“[McCain] should explain that African-Americans will be much better off in the long run if they are receptive to candidates of both parties instead of being virtual captives of only one, which is then free to take them for granted.”

This is actually pretty reasonable, so long as you don’t bother to think about it.

The Townhall column was called “Undoing the Nixon Legacy”. BTW the other “worst” areas were Taxes, Budget, Regulation and Inflation.

I wonder about the ratio of bad faith to honest, ideology-driven cluelessness.

In this case I would say that it is fairly clear that this is in bad faith. This is something he knows is BS, but now at least it is “out there”. (It does pick up on themes in a book he wrote on historical Democratic racism, but he knows this argument applied to the parties in 2008 is pure FUD.)

i think the point being made here is that since john mccain is closer in age to the bucket-kicking point(and thus to all the hallowed examples quoted above) than obama, he will be less racist.

This is actually pretty reasonable, so long as you don’t bother to think about it.

It would be reasonable even if you thought about it- in a parallel universe in which the Republicans hadn’t basically made their living the past few decades out of being the racist party.

Not to mention, the party of liars.

This appeal to the dead goes back a long way with conservative thinkers:

“SOCIETY is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure — but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico, or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties.

Note the dismissal of the mere material interest of the living in favour of the dead and unborn (in other words, the non-existent).

The Republican Party originated as the anti-slavery party.

How we got to here from there is a very long story. Here is one small piece.

The Dixiecrats recalled that treachery on the part of the Republicans until Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Then, as the radical conservatives took over the Republican Party, the Dixiecrats recognized that that was where they belonged, and that is where people of that mindset now locate themselves.

It’s all in which particular piece of treachery one wants to react to and how long one’s memory is. Or where one’s interest lies now.

The estimable Dr. Boli is ahead of the game here. He has founded the Fringe Party to run dead people for president. Harding is the pre-convention favorite.

My favorite line: “Harding’s Dead, But Is He Dead Enough?” — George F. Will.

1. Historically the Republican Party is not inherently racist.

1A Not many blacks will vote Republican in the coming presidential election.

2 John McCain should point this, 1, out in the hopes of convincing black voters to consider Republican candidates in the future.

3. Because since there isn’t anything inherently racist about being a Republican, black voters should consider the positions of both Democratic and Republican candidates and vote accordingly.

You wouldn’t think anyone would object to such a straightforward, basic, and sensible bit of commentary.

You would be wrong.

The fear and frothing generated by such straightforward, basic, and sensible bit of commentary, is indicative of how much Democrats rely on black voters voting Democratic based solely on the notion that the Republican Party is and must be inherently racist.

Sooner or later as the black middle and upper middle class continues to grow and as America becomes less and less racists Democrats are going to face a fight they could very easily lose.

someguy, you may be right that “Historically the Republican Party is not inherently racist.” What is being pointed out here is that “Historically the Republican Party is contingently racist.

The first claim does nothing to deny the second.

Historically the Republican Party is not inherently racist. But it is racist now.

“I used to be a handsome and energetic lad, many years ago.” Does this sound like a good pick-up line?

Based solely on self interest more blacks should vote Republican.

That’s because the Bush presidency has been great for EVERYONE!

Maybe blacks aren’t stupidly misled by “self-interest.” It was always a bit of a mug’s game, masquerading as a facet of science.

If one has to think about voting patterns in racial terms – which I think is a mistake, urban/suburban/rural slicing is much more meaningful – there is only one rational conclusion: the blacks as a group are much-much smarter than any other racial/ethnic group. By my physics-based scientific estimate 3 – 3.5 standard deviations smarter than the white folks.

What core principles and policies would these be? Presumably you mean neither the contents of the party platform nor the executive and legislative initiatives of Republican officials, since all those are hostile to the interests of every minority group, and to all but the wealthiest people of any race.

black voters should consider the positions of both Democratic and Republican candidates and vote accordingly.

And there’s nothing at all insulting or patronizing about the implication that black voters don’t do that now. No no no.

someguy, you’ve yet to adduce any evidence that black voters are, at present, supporting the Democratic party out of habit, rather than as the result of a rational assessment of both parties’ likely policies once in office.
And the fact that the nation at large is split roughly 50-50 does not mean that every demographic within it should be split 50-50, and that any deviation from this split must be the result of “habit and history”.

someguy, perhaps you could lay out what it is that Republicans offer to black voters? Bruce Bartlett pointed to the strong Republican stand against lynching in the 1920s. Anything since then?

fardels bear,

Today, in general lower taxes.

ajay,

I don’t have a mathematically proof. I guess, either you understand that people are in part creatures of habit and history or you don’t.

Here is brief recap of some of the history.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/the_contested_black_vote.php

In 1950s it was 50/50 by 1968 it was 95/5.

if we say that black voters are voting democrat based on their economic principles, and not their socially conservative values, then is it even appropriate to be classifying them as a distinct demographic? wouldn’t it be more accurate to divide this along class and wealth lines than racial lines? that way we could say x% of x income bracket votes democrat, etc. what, other than darker skin, puts them into the same voting block?

Someguy,

And for those lower taxes primarily aimed at the top percentage earners the trade-off is a worse economy at the lower then average incomes. And as with any group the majority of the black demographic doesn’t belong to the top percentage of earners.

Seeing that overall the Democrats realize better economic results for the largest groups, namely the below average and average income earners, lower taxes is hardly a good reason to vote for the republicans as the resulting cash advantage is still less then realized by the growth in income under the Democrats.

Your next argument about how the 1950 and 1968 numbers show that the black vote is purely directed by habit and history is pure unadulterated brainless piffle.

Those numbers simply show an institutional change; namely that both the democratic party and the republican party changed their policies and the black demographics’ distribution of the vote changed reflected that. In order to have a case you would have to show that those policies aren’t still relevant. But as of yet you’ve shown yourself incapable of doing that.

It is very simply; The Black vote goes to the democratic party because the democrats have been, and continue to be, far better advocates for that demographic then the republican party since the 1960’s.

Continued references to earlier times don’t matter as the change in policies since that are still there. Your assertion that “the core principals and policies of the Republican party are quite appealing” is simply wrong for the vast majority of the black demographic.

This isn’t rocket science, no mere habit is so powerful to divide a group at a 85/15 distribution. Later generations would show a significant weakening over time as new generations, unburdened by the actual event, would be less and less influenced by the preferences of their parents, this is clearly not the case.

Tom.

Most people are not saying that Black purely vote for economic reasons. It was simply the terrain someguy wanted the blacks to vote republican on. as Black Political Analysis said at 2:11 pm:

“While blacks are often socially conservative, rarely does it drive their voting. Issues of economics, education and civil rights largely drive their voting.”

They are a distinct demographic because they aren’t purely voting democratic for economic reasons but for economic reasons and several other reasons which combined make them a distinct demographic.

The reason why we purely talk about economic reasons is because someguy erroneously makes the claim that on that subject the republicans should receive a larger part of the vote from black voters but don’t because of habit, while we make the counter case that yes, the democratic party is economically better and that thus his claim is invalid, and that thus mere “habit” isn’t the reason why blacks vote democratic in the numbers that they do.

someguy, forgive black folks for forgetting that “lowering taxes” is an unassailable Good Thing for everyone. What is the budget deficit under GWB? How much does the Iraq War cost? What is the percentage of the war actually funded by the Chinese? And the Republicans get us all that for an extra $600 in our pockets!

Yes, “lower taxes” certiainly would make up for Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, and Jesse Helms, how foolish of black folks not to realize this.

In 1950s it was 50/50 by 1968 it was 95/5.

Is that supposed to prove that the black vote now is largely based on habit? How does that work exactly? Why didn’t the habit of the ’50s carry over into the ’60s and ’70s? I mean, I know what I think the reason is: the parties changed places on who was supporting black interests better. What’s your explanation?

As for your census chart, I’m not sure what you think you’re showing. Average income at every level has gone up every year, regardless of who was in office. It seems to me that they made more gains during the Clinton presidency than they have under W. So where’s the argument for voting Republican there?

Hogan,

Civil Rights was huge. Goldwater and conervatives were wrong.

The differences today are much smaller and problematic and the landscape is much different. Affirmative action is sometimes good and sometimes not so good.

And like I said people are in part creatures of habit and history either you get that or you don’t.

History and association plays a part in how people vote today.

The census data was for cryptic ned and the conclusion was based on cryptic ned’s reasoning.

I agree with you. Income pretty much always goes up for all income groups in any 2 year adminstration.

Civil Rights was huge.

Is huge.

Yes but very few people now oppose Civil Rights.

Some of them appear to be in the current justice department, so there’s that.

Ernst,

My bad. Thanks.

Tying economic growth to Democratic or Republican policies is just wishfull thinking. It is impossible to define the policies let alone make a connection.

“Your next argument about how the 1950 and 1968 numbers show that the black vote is purely directed by habit and history is pure unadulterated brainless piffle.”

Only I didn’t make any such argument. I said in part by habit and history. And I never argued that the 1950 and 1968 numbers showed that. I was pointing out that a huge change took place during that period. It makes sense that the ramifications of that change would continue on for a good deal of time.

What is pure piffle is the notion that habit and history play no part in today’s proceddings.

Perhaps you would like to argue that the last 8 years shouldn’t and more importantly won’t have any impact on McCain and Republican chances this fall? That each Republican should be and more importantly will be judged based on a case by case basis based on current policy proposals.

“Your assertion that “the core principals and policies of the Republican party are quite appealing” is simply wrong for the vast majority of the black demographic.”

If by vast majority you mean 3/5s. I might agree. But for 2/5s, middle and upper middle class blacks, I would disagree.

“Later generations would show a significant weakening over time as new generations, unburdened by the actual event, would be less and less influenced by the preferences of their parents, this is clearly not the case.”

Exactly. It was 95/5 and now it is some where between 85/15 and 90/10.

Bruce Baugh,

Both parties are appealing. For a number of reasons other than history and habit I would expect more blacks to vote Democratic.

But for black voters in the upper 2/5 income brackets I would expect Republican policies to be much closer to evenly appealing.

Identifying party policies that impact income growth might be impossible but identifying policies that impact your after tax income is a lot more possible.

Someguy, quite literally, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You are not in a position to have any idea what’s up with a whole lot of people, and until you begin to understand their concerns, you’re just so much more mindless blather. You deserve the mockery you’re getting. You are in the position of someone trying to recruit KKK members to support feminism and affirmative action, except with the bigotry flowing in the other direction. And that fact that you are unlikely ever to get this is itself a perfect demonstration of why African-Americans have left the Republican Party far behind.

according to wikipedia, there have been 90+ african american members of congress since ww2. of these, only 4 have been republicans, and that includes 1 non-voting rep from the virgin islands and 1 rockefeller republican senator from massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress

It’s clearly true that every demographic would be better served by being up for grabs, rather than having one party be able to take them for granted. But this doesn’t mean that they should aim to vote 50/50 for the two parties, with deviations only when one party changes their policies in a direction that’s more favorable for the demographic.

What it really suggests is that (in this case) black people should enthusiastically take part in Republican primaries and vote for the candidate who will be more favorable for issues that are relevant to their community, and then vote in the general election for whichever party’s candidate is better for their community (which will still probably be the Democrat). But if enough Republicans with policy positions that are relatively favorable for black communities move up in the party, then the two parties will both start to become acceptable choices in the general election, and the interests of the community will be better served over all.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like Republicans have been doing much to encourage this strategy at all.

@#40 (myself) i just realized that my phrase “other than darker skin” is rather stupid. i was, of course, talking about skin color in relation to my own, which is the palest of pale. i try to check myself on those things, sorry

Who should white people vote for? As we know there could be no dissent within a racial group.

John, I gotta tell you, the Republicans were the original party of civil rights and it matters: there’s a historical part to historical materialism (the original formulation of which involved Marx warmly congratulating Lincoln on a job well done), and being a cultural materialist requires recognizing that blacks are receptive to long-dead candidates. As for Democratic necropolitics, I like to think the Revolutionary George Clinton was a good guy (maybe even some blacks agree), but the history of Democrats on race relations really isn’t heroic.

Uncle Kvetch: Well, look. Do you want a party with prominent people who have a tendency to form long-lasting heterosexual unions and to keep their various commitments, or do you want a party that understands the closeted life, self-loathing, transgressive relationships, and unorthodox bonding of all kinds? Don’t you as a gay man feel drawn to the people who understand alienation best?

(Someone’s going to think I’m serious, I just know it.)

If by vast majority you mean 3/5s.

Come on, this “statistic” shows that Someguy is taking the piss. No one would be so tone-deaf as to choose this fraction when describing black American voter preferences…