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

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

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?

Perceived social structures and social structures as quantified by the sort of statistics that are used in formal sociology often bear almost no resemblance to each other whatsoever. The privilege of, as you say, Jews and Northeastern WASPs can take a sort of 'soft paternalism' cast, which certainly has racist elements but whose racist elements aren't necessarily coded into policy in quite so damaging ways. The lack-of-privilege of Scots-Irish Southerners runs into issues of resentment that privilege perceived to have existed in the past is perceived to no longer exist--false consciousness. I've experienced both, having lived in the Northeast my whole life but having personal ties to Alabama and to some of the more rural, culturally-Southern parts of the Delmarva Peninsula and Tidewater. In some ways Southern false consciousness is actually less gross than Northern paternalism, but it's often a lot more damaging when translated into public policy.

[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.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

The word racist has no place in our discourse unless we're talking about David Duke ideologies... you seem to be talkinga bout affirmative action and things of that nature so let me ask you this- is there anything more racist then saying to an African American "we expect LESS from you"?

No, racism is alive and well, and ignoring it and pretending that only the Klan is racist is the perfect way to minimalize race problems that still exist.

The African American was stolen from his home land. Robbed of his name, his culture, his history. Lived in slavery for centuries. Raped by his white owner. Suffered segregation for another century. Stuffed into the poorest neighborhoods. Denied education. Harassed by the police. Treated like garbage for all of our history. In the 1960s a black man couldn't even order coffee where he pleased.

You expect that a people who's been stomped on for centuries to simply pick itself up, dust itself off, and act like nothing happened? These people are still suffering from racism, from the racism of the past, and from the continued racism that keeps them in some of the poorest communities with the poorest education in our country.

And you think it's racist to offer them a hand?

I think it is racist to say we expect less from a black child then we do from a white child. How do you expect someone to riseif their standards are not the same? I have not a racist bone in my body and I have spent a lifetime standing up for blacks, whether they were in my unit or in my business, and your generalization that all Republicans are somehow racist is wrong, offensive, and ignorant

[memphis]

The Vietnam War.

That is just flat out untrue and I think you know that. History speaks for itself, no amount of revising is going to change it.

^^^^^^^^
Unlike Bush's disaster in Iraq, opposition or support for the Vietnam War wasn't a partisan issue. There were large numbers of people in both parties both for and against the war.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

Relative lack of special treatment and consideration and privileges is not a 'systematic insult', no matter how much you might think based on the past that you deserve said privileges. It's really easy to perceive an even-handed approach as somehow biased against you when you expect and are used to being treated with kid gloves by venal panderers like Ronald Reagan.

[tpfkaw]

...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?

Resentment.

Hence proving my point exactly!

The Vietnam War.

That is just flat out untrue and I think you know that. History speaks for itself, no amount of revising is going to change it.

^^^^^^^^
Unlike Bush's disaster in Iraq, opposition or support for the Vietnam War wasn't a partisan issue. There were large numbers of people in both parties both for and against the war.

But Richard Nixon was for it and George McGovern was against it.  In presidential elections, 1972 was the high-water mark for the GOP in the South.  They've never done better before or since.  The sentiment was decidedly more "Okie From Muskogee" than anything else.  Believe it or not, your average white Southerner had and has a greater love of blind nationalism and distaste for "anti-Christian" morals than any sort of convoluted theory that Richard Nixon had a secret plan to undo LBJ's legislation which he publicly endorsed and was perfectly willing to fund in his first term.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I must be on a lot of people's ignore list.

[memphis]

...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?

Resentment.

Hence proving my point exactly!

The Vietnam War.

That is just flat out untrue and I think you know that. History speaks for itself, no amount of revising is going to change it.

^^^^^^^^
Unlike Bush's disaster in Iraq, opposition or support for the Vietnam War wasn't a partisan issue. There were large numbers of people in both parties both for and against the war.

But Richard Nixon was for it and George McGovern was against it.  In presidential elections, 1972 was the high-water mark for the GOP in the South.  

This is not true. Nixon was elected on getting the country out of Vietnam, a war, more or less, started by LBJ. He famously campaigned in 1968 that he had a secret plan to end the war. And by the end of his first term it was almost over. McGovern couldn't have ended it much sooner. And 1972 was the high water mark for the GOP everywhere, not just in the South. Even Reagan's 1984 landslide was not as great. And if we're talking relative to the national results, 1964 was the GOP's high water mark in the South.

[tpfkaw]

This is not true. Nixon was elected on getting the country out of Vietnam, a war, more or less, started by LBJ. He famously campaigned in 1968 that he had a secret plan to end the war.

Uh, yes, that was the 1968 election.  Which was, as some people know, 4 years prior to 1972.  In those intervening 4 years, Nixon flip-flopped rather spectacularly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope, 1920 (or 24 by far if you add Coolidge and LaFollette together).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that was sorta my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, pretty sure that's not true, or if it is then 72 is a close second.  Secondly, LBJ won Southern whites, so it's kind of a silly comparison, like saying that '36 was the GOP high-water mark in the midwest (probably not true, but certainly possible).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Except that in many ways, it is a coincidence.  That you can be here at a website full of demographic information and not appreciate the complexity of reasons behind voting patterns is frightening.

There are many reasons behind voting patterns.

Yet there is no complicated reason minorities tend away from Republicans.

Isn't there?  Does geography not matter?
Does urbanity and economic status not matter in terms of how people vote?
Does the historical convergence of civil rights and liberal activism not matter ?
Minorities only look at which party is supposedly racist and then vote the other way?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I have a young penpal there.

[memphis]

This is not true. Nixon was elected on getting the country out of Vietnam, a war, more or less, started by LBJ. He famously campaigned in 1968 that he had a secret plan to end the war.

Uh, yes, that was the 1968 election.  Which was, as some people know, 4 years prior to 1972.  In those intervening 4 years, Nixon flip-flopped rather spectacularly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope, 1920 (or 24 by far if you add Coolidge and LaFollette together).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that was sorta my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, pretty sure that's not true, or if it is then 72 is a close second.  Secondly, LBJ won Southern whites, so it's kind of a silly comparison, like saying that '36 was the GOP high-water mark in the midwest (probably not true, but certainly possible).

Nixon didn't flip flop in Vietnam. He ended the war slowly. He never pledged to end it the day he took office. And by the end of his first term, it was very nearly over. McGovern couldn't have ended it any sooner because by 1973, it was over.
Also, Nixon had both a higher popular vote and a higher Electoral College vote in 1972 than Warren G did in 1920. And adding Coolidge and LaFollette together makes no sense at all. And putting results in national context makes a lot of sense. Not denying that Nixon was popular in MS in 1972. He beat his national total by 18 points. However, Goldwater beat his national total there by 49%. It's an entirely different dynamic. 1964 is the year the South became the most GOP region in presidential contests. The Dems had one final hurrah in Dixie in 1976, but that was the end. Clinton never even came close to winning the old Confederacy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It is no coincidence that pretty much every non-white group votes Democratic.

Republicans are racist.

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

how can the GOP be racist when its dominated by the jmfcsts?

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

No. The Republican party is not racist. That's like saying the Democrats are anti cuban.


It's ridiculous.

[Kushahontas]

the Party itself may not officially be, but a sizable portion of the fan club sure as hell is.

[freepcrusher]

I wouldn't consider the entire party racist, but there are surely factions of it that are. I mean in 1964 something like 75-80% of all republicans voted for the civil rights act.

[Jerseyrules]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, pretty sure that's not true, or if it is then 72 is a close second.  Secondly, LBJ won Southern whites, so it's kind of a silly comparison, like saying that '36 was the GOP high-water mark in the midwest (probably not true, but certainly possible).

Correct me if I'm wrong but 1964 was the last time a Democrat got the majority of the white vote right? (purely trivial, I just wanted to know if I was right )

[Hanzo]

the Party itself may not officially be, but a sizable portion of the fan club sure as hell is.

I agree with you on this. The party isn't, but most of the base is appealed to by racial code words. I'm a registered Republican and even though I'm in my 20's, I see a lot more racial gaffes from Republicans than Democrats. Not to say the Democrats are perfect, but they have done a better job getting their racists out.

Not to mention for some time before 2010, there was little or no diversity in the GOP in Congress or the Senate. There is plenty of evidence of this.

These people, are also the RINO hunters. These are the ones who take out the ones that don't use the code word and actually have an appeal outside of the base.

The racists also the ones who think the Republican Party reaching out is suicide. They also claim that somehow it means changing principles and becoming Democrats (as if Democrats are the only ones who reach out). That alone shows what they really think of them.

Conservative Republicans love to talk about how they transcend race, if they really did Why do I just see white people (mostly) at conservative events?

The Republicans that aren't racist and appeal to minorities are the moderate-to-liberal Republicans (The RINO's in the racists' minds)

Conservatives in America have mostly a poor record on race. However, the Conservatives in other countries don't because they realize they need to reach out (then again, the "true conservatives" think Conservatives in other countries are a bunch of communists for trying to appeal to others).

I read something from Earl Ofari Hutchinson in regards to the GOP and Black America that I think rings true to the GOP's problems with reaching out. In a nutshell, they fear losing white votes and have tried to attract other non-white groups without alienating whites.

Surely, some people in the party would see that appealing to only bigots is going to be a liability in the near and far future especially with the growing Hispanic, Asian and black populations in the coming decades.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I wouldn't consider the entire party racist, but there are surely factions of it that are. I mean in 1964 something like 75-80% of all republicans voted for the civil rights act.

And Goldwater voted against it. He was considered a nut in his day. Today, he would be far too liberal for a Republican primary.

[angus]

It is no coincidence that pretty much every non-white group votes Democratic.

Republicans are racist.

It is no coincidence that plugs are found only on walls.  

Clearly floors and ceilings are electrophobes.


Glad we got that sorted out.

[Joe Republic]

It is no coincidence that pretty much every non-white group votes Democratic.

Republicans are racist.

It is no coincidence that plugs are found only on walls.  

Clearly floors and ceilings are electrophobes.


Glad we got that sorted out.

Floor:



Ceiling:



This evidence proves that the Republican Party must therefore be racist.

[tpfkaw]

It is no coincidence that pretty much every non-white group votes Democratic.

Republicans are racist.

It is no coincidence that plugs are found only on walls.  

Clearly floors and ceilings are electrophobes.


Glad we got that sorted out.

Floor:



Ceiling:



This evidence proves that the Republican Party must therefore be racist.

Well over 90% of plugs are found on walls.  Those are just "Uncle Tom" plugs.

[Sbane]

Obviously the entire party isn't racist, but just look at Gingrich's performance in the Fox SC debate against Juan Williams. And the disgusting standing applause he got after that.

Of course when it comes to Muslims, Gays and Mexicans, Republicans don't even try to hide their bigotry. At least they use code words when talking about Blacks. So yes, at the very least they appeal to racists even if they aren't racists themselves. And in many cases they are racists, like George Allen who is now running for Senate again. Lol.

[Mechaman]

The GOP has had racists in it's party since the days of Thomas Nast.



With that said I'm not entirely sure you can call the party itself racist.  I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure you could've called the Democratic Party itself racist between 1828-1964 (given some of the convention platforms I read).

You see that's the tricky part is trying to narrow specific behavior down to entire political parties.  Yes, you can easily argue "well the Republican Party is more in favor of free market economics" or "the Democratic Party believes in helping the disadvantaged" or what not.  However, assigning personal characteristics to entire organizations?  Not so sure.

To me saying the Republican Party is racist is like saying the Democratic Party is politically correct.  Sure, there are millions of them out there but not enough to qualify for the "party X is racist" award.

I'm not really sure.  I'll reserve judgment until the Presidential Convention when they decide to adopt an official "ENGRISH ONRY!" or a revoke the 14th Amendment plank.

[/Mecha's two cents]

[Link]

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

I know where you are coming from but I have a lot of Republican friends and they are not racist.  Frankly I don't know why the Republican doesn't dump the racism, sexism, and homophobia thing.  True fiscal conservatives have some good ideas.  This freakshow stuff some of them do on the social issue though is a big disctraction.