Republicans, do you believe your party isn't racist?

[krazen1211]

It is no coincidence that pretty much every white group votes Republican.

Democrats are racist.

Do you recognize this and not care, or do you not even see it?

[krazen1211]

It is no coincidence that pretty much every white group votes Republican.

Democrats are racist.

Do you recognize this and not care, or do you not even see it?

Racism, as a social system, is prejudice with the backing of privilege. Non-white groups tend not to have privilege in this country, to put it mildly.

Racism as an individual attitude in individual voting choices, which is what the original post was referring to, doesn't require a backing of privilege. Just prejudice.

[krazen1211]

It is no coincidence that pretty much every white group votes Republican.

Democrats are racist.

Do you recognize this and not care, or do you not even see it?

Racism, as a social system, is prejudice with the backing of privilege. Non-white groups tend not to have privilege in this country, to put it mildly.

Racism as an individual attitude in individual voting choices, which is what the original post was referring to, doesn't require a backing of privilege. Just prejudice.

That isn't racism. Just prejudice. Racism is structural, especially as applied to voting blocs. Individualism in politics is illusory anyway, and not just at the racial/ethnic level. The idea that the Democratic Party is in the business of systematically dog-whistling against white people is absolutely laughable.

That's not what the Democrats themselves concluded after the Reagan landslides, since those were brought up. Stan Greenberg concluded in 1985 that Reagan dominated among working class white Democrats such as those in Macomb County due to the perception that the Democratic party was prioritizing others over them and treating them and their values as secondary.

Of course, the Democrats can't mistreat all whites or they would never win. So, they merely picked a chosen few, such as academics from Massachusetts, and systematically insult the rest. No wonder they vote the way they do.

[krazen1211]

Why do you think it is, then, that the most "privileged" white groups (Jews and Northeastern WASPs) are the most likely to vote Democrat, while the least "privileged" (Scots-Irish Southerners, who actually score worse than blacks on most socioeconomic indicators, without the privilege of college admissions or hiring preferences, and with the disadvantage of that it's not considered acceptable in polite society not to be bigoted towards them) are the most likely to vote GOP?

It's interesting how school busing is considered to be an integral part of Wake County. If you ever tried that in Mercer County and bused the kids at Trenton over to Princeton or West Windsor there would be hundreds of parents screaming in protest.

[krazen1211]

Yes, Krazy, and the vast majority of whites in the Democratic Party hate themselves.

Or see themselves as "White" rather than " Irish-American", German-American" "Italian-American", etc.

Or merely voting against their own interests.

[krazen1211]

Yes, Krazy, and the vast majority of whites in the Democratic Party hate themselves.

Or see themselves as "White" rather than " Irish-American", German-American" "Italian-American", etc.

Or merely voting against their own interests.

Hearing this from a Republican is absolutely hilarious. What phenomenon do you think your lock on the South comes from?

What lock on the South? If you're referring to the very recent acquisition of numerous state legislatures that the Democrats held for 100+ years, it has to do with San Francisco Atheists and Massachusetts liberals systematically insulting their culture and values.

Example is provided here. More directly, the South votes Republican because of people like you.

The phrase 'and Religious Exemption' is even in the title of the bill, specifically for the benefit of people who follow those benighted churches that still adhere to ungodly gender determinism.

[krazen1211]

I don't understand how my (perfectly mainstream) views in opposition to both hydraulic and identitarian attitudes towards human sexuality, which I might point out I developed precisely because of my religious background, have anything to do with voting patterns in the South.

When I say 'lock on the South' I of course refer to the huge margins that national Republicans have been running up in most Southern states for some time now, ever since the racial and sexual dog-whistling began with the exception of when the Democrats put up Southern candidates. Perhaps I should have said 'Deep South', but the culture and values of the area in question are not my concern and I am making no attempt to insult them, beyond critiquing the ways in which they, much like many traditional cultures in, say, the Muslim world and Africa, run afoul of the true means of the world. I make, of course, no effort to abrogate the South's culture or values beyond asking that it cease its attempts to abrogate other people's.

Contrast, for instance, you, and your active and deliberate attempts at abrogating the culture and values of the working class and poor.

Question: You are aware that I am neither an atheist nor a liberal, right?

Further question: You concede, though, that voting out of spite against other parts of the country and other sacramental characters and performativities does, in this case, constitute voting against one's self-interest, do you not?

ETA: Sorry, but I can't resist. I would like to state for the record that I think I understand what some of us might be in the business of calling 'real American' culture and values better than Krazen does, since I grew up in a farming community, was on food stamps for a spell in my childhood, and have spent (personal, not business) time in the Deep South and Tidewater.

Unfortunately for you, I suppose, your views are not mainstream in the South. 86% of those in Mississippi for instance chose to support traditional marriage. Your characterization of 14% as 'perfectly mainstream' is quite funny. As is your statement that you, err, 'don't make any attempt to insult them', and then promptly insult them in the same sentence.

A President like Bill Clinton who sided with landslide majorities in Congress to defend marriage is more than capable of winning numerous states in the South and coming close to winning several others. He of course did. Localization is nothing new to politics; take a look at how well George McGovern did in South Dakota.

In this particular case, of course, there is no particular reason for any Southerner to believe that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi's Democratic party has their best interests at heart. Electing the Republican party for instance has prevented the scoundrels from the EPA from wrecking havoc on the populace. You might think otherwise, but you're a 14%er. Beyond that fact, well, what you are is up to you.

[krazen1211]

IMO I wouldn't say the south is racist as much as it is ethnocentric. While the south has a history of racism, much of the south's biggest problem is with alien cultures, including many white people. Look at someone like Chuck Schumer or Howard Berman. They possess a culture and values different from most people in the south. If they went to talk with some everyday people in the south they would likely be called a weirdo or a f****t etc.

Chuck Schumer's former congressional district is about as non southern as you can get, yet it acted on the same pattern.

Normally of course that district would provide a Jewish Democrat with 70-80% of the vote, and it did. Then one particular Jewish Democrat chose to engage in a pattern of behavior that insulted the culture and faith of the citizens of New York's 9th district. He of course lost just this year.

[krazen1211]

You're being very selective in what groups you hold to be capable of being insulted in such a way or worth being concerned for the tender feelings of when they are, you know.

Not really. Plenty of groups are capable of such. What changes is who is doing the insulting and why they are doing the insulting, or as you put it, critiquing, as you just unloaded a new barrage of, err, critiques.


You know, you can believe in the imperial judiciary coming to your rescue while at the same time recognizing the consecutive landslide defeats initiated at the voting booth. But I suppose you'll just use a lot of words critiquing again.

As to the only relevant inquiry you made, the obvious answer to this question is the Republican party. One can begin to look at this by examining the 1 party city of Washington DC where Republicans simply don't exist in any significant number.

"Which party is it that you think cares about improving public health, infrastructure, education, and the standard of living?"