Biden’s $6.8 Trillion Budget Proposes New Social Programs and Higher Taxes on wealthy

[Trump Is A Maoist]

IIRC you adamantly utterly refuse to acknowledge that there's any history in the last few decades, let alone in present, of the Republican Party using racist dog whistles against blacks and hispanics.

There is not! We have been over this many times. over multiple years. You need this to be true because you need there to be a reason which isn't the actual one, and you will strain your interpretations of every possible counterexample so that it fits your worldview. Every instance of a minority community which is assimilated enough moving rightwards, or minority politicians and celebrities being popular in "red" places, will be dismissed as irrelevant, and every gesture will be reinterpreted as evidence that you were right all along, first gradually and then suddenly.

Bruh...

[Vosem]

Why don't you put some more! On your assertion that there's no such thing as racial dog whistling by conservatives. Might make it more true.

Man, this is two points on which you are utterly ridiculous.

There is no such thing as dog-whistling of any kind -- racial or otherwise -- from anyone -- conservative or otherwise. The last refuge when someone doesn't say the things you expect them to, in your play, is when you begin interpreting their hidden symbols.

(The insistence on the existence of hidden symbols is another interesting commonality between the American left and the Eastern European right, even as the American right and Eastern European left keep actually doing the things they always say they will when they reach government).

[Trump Is A Maoist]

There is no such thing as dog-whistling of any kind -- racial or otherwise -- from anyone -- conservative or otherwise.

This is possibly the most insane post made on Atlas so far in 2023. Very entertaining stuff.

[Badger]

Why don't you put some more! On your assertion that there's no such thing as racial dog whistling by conservatives. Might make it more true.

Man, this is two points on which you are utterly ridiculous.

There is no such thing as dog-whistling of any kind -- racial or otherwise -- from anyone -- conservative or otherwise. The last refuge when someone doesn't say the things you expect them to, in your play, is when you begin interpreting their hidden symbols.

(The insistence on the existence of hidden symbols is another interesting commonality between the American left and the Eastern European right, even as the American right and Eastern European left keep actually doing the things they always say they will when they reach government).

.
. Dog whistles and racism by the way it doesn't exist because I say so! And it would be very inconvenient for me to admit otherwise!

 You really are divested from planet earth. Sheltered as hell and don't even realize it.

Actually, I'm genuinely torn as to whether you are genuinely that clueless, or just don't give a damn because at the end of the day the dog whistles help get you and your type votes to slash the social safety net. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in just assume it's continuing ignorance as that seems to be your modus operandi.

[Badger]

Jesus, even when I try to parody Vosem as an utterly heartless rangian fanatic with no connection to the realities of poverty, and he actually outdoes me

Well plates sir.

I might have to start using 'well plates'.

Have you ever met or spoken to someone who receives EBT? Have you ever wondered why communities that receive EBT support, like, Thomas Massie and Rand Paul? Unfortunately for you, poor people often do understand exactly how the world works.

If patriotism is the last Refuge of a scoundrel, i guess trying to make a joke about a voice text app error is the last Refuge of an ass.

Oh Vosem, you sweet summer child. Are you really that separated from the realities of American politics to understand that the reason such communities vote Republican have next to nothing to do with economics? Are you really even in your libertarian bubble of assuming everything the Invisible Hand of the market performs is completely rational, that issues of abortion, immigration, wokeness, religion, and general cultural and Timothy play far far more of a role in such voting in Kentucky then economics? I mean sh**t, even Thomas Massey almost lost in 2018!

He won 62%-35%.

Anyway, yes. These people vote in referendums consistently with ideas like this; it is poorer, not wealthier, areas, that even vote against Medicare expansion. I've had friends that are professionals at running campaigns in places like this, and have won. Poor people in the US blame government activity for their poverty. My understanding is that this is uncommon outside the US but spreading.

I know that you believe that these people are ignorant racist rubes. You do not have to remind us how low your opinion of American voters is, and that you know what policies would help them. In your wisdom you do not ever have to speak to, or meet, people to know what is good for them!

Oh my god, if you really believe that Rand Paul and Thomas Massey's constituents are out there reading works from the Misses-Hayak caucus rather then just absorbing what Fox News and Facebook memes tell them, man you are even more clueless than I would have believed. Oh but wait. I almost forgot your other defining feature on Atlas isn't just being the poster child for FTW dystopian libertarianism, I IRC you adamantly utterly refuse to acknowledge that there's any history in the last few decades, let alone in present, of the Republican Party using racist dog whistles against blacks and hispanics.

There is not! We have been over this many times. over multiple years. You need this to be true because you need there to be a reason which isn't the actual one, and you will strain your interpretations of every possible counterexample so that it fits your worldview. Every instance of a minority community which is assimilated enough moving rightwards, or minority politicians and celebrities being popular in "red" places, will be dismissed as irrelevant, and every gesture will be reinterpreted as evidence that you were right all along, first gradually and then suddenly.

Put these two beliefs together and your cluelessness is doubled down and suddenly makes sense.

And yes, you self-righteous smug twit, I have had close friends go on public assistance thank you very much. Something I sincerely doubt you can say. Though If you can it hardly impacted you as a person.

Of course I have friends on public assistance; I attended a public school in the United States and there were plenty of people who I am still in touch with who did not have good outcomes. (I have friends on public assistance who think public assistance should be abolished, though IME being super-unapologetic about this and not thinking it's hypocritical is unusual outside of the Russian-American community). I'm asking you if you have friends who aren't from the United States; if you have friends that don't speak English; if you have friends that have ever lived through a famine, or if you have ever even met anyone who has made their living through subsistence farming or pastoralism. My assumption is that you have not.

. The fact that there are many people the 'get the government's hands off my Medicaid and disability!!" crowd who don't grasp the incongruity of that belief doesn't mean they wouldn't be rightly and completely effed if that were actually followed through on. These people are angry at the system, they're angry at the government, and they're angry at their own situation. But riding their own Misfortune on the back of your Hayek fanboy fantasies is still gross.

[Vosem]

Why don't you put some more! On your assertion that there's no such thing as racial dog whistling by conservatives. Might make it more true.

Man, this is two points on which you are utterly ridiculous.

There is no such thing as dog-whistling of any kind -- racial or otherwise -- from anyone -- conservative or otherwise. The last refuge when someone doesn't say the things you expect them to, in your play, is when you begin interpreting their hidden symbols.

(The insistence on the existence of hidden symbols is another interesting commonality between the American left and the Eastern European right, even as the American right and Eastern European left keep actually doing the things they always say they will when they reach government).

.
. Dog whistles and racism by the way it doesn't exist because I say so! And it would be very inconvenient for me to admit otherwise!

They don't exist because every example that has ever been provided -- and I have carried out this exercise in multiple languages -- has always demonstrated that people hear what they want to hear, and politicians who reach office usually try to do the things they say. We've already done the conversation with specific examples on AAD, but we can do it again if you insist.

You really are divested from planet earth. Sheltered as hell and don't even realize it.

Repeating this is really not going to cover up that there are huge sections of the planet I can speak to and you cannot which will forever remain foreign to you.

. The fact that there are many people the 'get the government's hands off my Medicaid and disability!!" crowd who don't grasp the incongruity of that belief doesn't mean they wouldn't be rightly and completely effed if that were actually followed through on. These people are angry at the system, they're angry at the government, and they're angry at their own situation. But riding their own Misfortune on the back of your Hayek fanboy fantasies is still gross.

It is perfectly coherent and reasonable to think that you would in the long run be better off if this happened; once again you are basically just showing that you feel contempt for lots of voters, whose stories you don't (and often in fact can't) understand.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Anyway the whole controversy of the southern strategy is lol. The GOP did not come close to giving the dixiecrats what they wanted but were just able to use anti government sentiment southerners had in enacting their economic agenda(Reagan moved the party more economically to the right than socially to the right if you actually look at actual policy instead of just vibes). The Dixiecrats ended up bowing down to us rather than the other way around if you again look at actual policy instead of vibes.

Without the Southern Strategy the US likely would be like Canada today, and thank god that never happened.

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

This budget sucks! The Pentagon should be shrunk by at least 80%.

[Badger]

Anyway the whole controversy of the southern strategy is lol. The GOP did not come close to giving the dixiecrats what they wanted but were just able to use anti government sentiment southerners had in enacting their economic agenda(Reagan moved the party more economically to the right than socially to the right if you actually look at actual policy instead of just vibes). The Dixiecrats ended up bowing down to us rather than the other way around if you again look at actual policy instead of vibes.

Without the Southern Strategy the US likely would be like Canada today, and thank god that never happened.

Just keep telling yourself that beep boop. Lee atwater, who I think was instrumental in electing some hero of yours had something to say on the subject I believe?

It's not only reprehensible that you play See No Evil Hear no evil speak no evil regarding the GOP and yes Reagan's very very assiduous dog whistling on Race issues the last few decades, but that in the end you are perfectly okay with it because without the southern strategy and it's very very over reaching out towards White racist fears, you wouldn't get your precious upper income tax cuts and thank God we have our own private effed up employment based health insurance system. You feel like you have a halo over your head it seems because you're not racist, just an ally with racists.

[Alcibiades]

The Southern Strategy was both very real and had disastrous consequences. In 1976, America was obviously very far from being a post-racial paradise, but things did indeed seem to be moving in the right direction. Neither of that year's presidential candidates made any kind of concerted appeal to Southern segregationists (Ford won 16% of the black vote, a number no Republican presidential nominee since has exceeded), while across the South, a new generation of centre-left Democrats was being swept into office on the backs of multiracial coalitions, while many in the Republican minority in these states were pretty moderate. It seemed that both parties were ignoring the last gasps of racist Southern whites, whose influence on politics was rapidly waning.

Then along came Reagan and Atwater and all the rest. The Neshoba County Fair 'states' rights' speech, which remains one of the all-time low points of modern American politics. While of course massively improving over Ford with voters as a whole, Reagan haemorrhaged support among black voters. The black poverty rate, which had plummeted after LBJ's Great Society, ticked up slightly again (and would only start to fall again - and in fact fall rapidly - under Bill Clinton. Starting to see a pattern here?).

The tragedy of all this is that it didn't have to be that way. The Republican Party made a conscious effort to resurrect the central role of Southern racists in national politics, which took on a particularly toxic character under the cloak of the Evangelical Religious Right (which - and this can't be emphasised enough - was to a very large degree just the continuation of the segregationist movement). It's perhaps an uncomfortable fact for those of us who would like to believe in a romantic vision of democracy as representing the pure will of the people, but supply-side factors play just as important a role as demand-side ones in electoral politics. If politicians aren't selling something, voters won't buy it. No one made the Republican Party embrace Southern white resentment - there was nothing inevitable about its continued relevance in national politics.

[Torie]

I opened this thread not knowing the details of Biden's tax increase plan, and having read the thread, still do not. Congratulations. I did however get a few nuggets from the array of the resident philosopher kings, and some pseudo Hobson choice curve balls to ponder.

[libertpaulian]

Anyway the whole controversy of the southern strategy is lol. The GOP did not come close to giving the dixiecrats what they wanted but were just able to use anti government sentiment southerners had in enacting their economic agenda(Reagan moved the party more economically to the right than socially to the right if you actually look at actual policy instead of just vibes). The Dixiecrats ended up bowing down to us rather than the other way around if you again look at actual policy instead of vibes.

Without the Southern Strategy the US likely would be like Canada today, and thank god that never happened.

The very reason the Southern Strategy happened was because Nixon and Reagan knew they could appeal to white race resentment, and many white voters were either outraged, or at minimum, annoyed with the gains of the Civil Rights Movement. It was the perfect storm to swipe their votes away from the Dems.

Many of these white voters still support things like universal healthcare, slightly higher taxes for the wealthy, etc., but know that if they vote Republican, black and Hispanic people will be more harmed by GOP economic policies.

"Yeah, I know that voting for the Republican means I might lose my Obamacare, but the GOP will cut TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid for those mooching welfare queens, and we know they don't deserve those benefits!"

[Sir Mohamed]

Based.

Too bad it's not going to pass. Basically most of Biden's agenda is just commonsense, while the GOP's agenda is driven by political theater and rigid ideology.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Anyway the whole controversy of the southern strategy is lol. The GOP did not come close to giving the dixiecrats what they wanted but were just able to use anti government sentiment southerners had in enacting their economic agenda(Reagan moved the party more economically to the right than socially to the right if you actually look at actual policy instead of just vibes). The Dixiecrats ended up bowing down to us rather than the other way around if you again look at actual policy instead of vibes.

Without the Southern Strategy the US likely would be like Canada today, and thank god that never happened.

Just keep telling yourself that beep boop. Lee atwater, who I think was instrumental in electing some hero of yours had something to say on the subject I believe?

It's not only reprehensible that you play See No Evil Hear no evil speak no evil regarding the GOP and yes Reagan's very very assiduous dog whistling on Race issues the last few decades, but that in the end you are perfectly okay with it because without the southern strategy and it's very very over reaching out towards White racist fears, you wouldn't get your precious upper income tax cuts and thank God we have our own private effed up employment based health insurance system. You feel like you have a halo over your head it seems because you're not racist, just an ally with racists.

The racists didn’t get what they wanted but economic conservatives did .

If the response to this is the war on drugs , keep in mind the war on drugs was bipartisan and supported by pretty much every region of the country . Heck the most hawkish president on the war on drugs was a democrat and the current democratic president thought Reagan didn’t go far enough on the war on drugs.

[Badger]

The Southern Strategy was both very real and had disastrous consequences. In 1976, America was obviously very far from being a post-racial paradise, but things did indeed seem to be moving in the right direction. Neither of that year's presidential candidates made any kind of concerted appeal to Southern segregationists (Ford won 16% of the black vote, a number no Republican presidential nominee since has exceeded), while across the South, a new generation of centre-left Democrats was being swept into office on the backs of multiracial coalitions, while many in the Republican minority in these states were pretty moderate. It seemed that both parties were ignoring the last gasps of racist Southern whites, whose influence on politics was rapidly waning.

Then along came Reagan and Atwater and all the rest. The Neshoba County Fair 'states' rights' speech, which remains one of the all-time low points of modern American politics. While of course massively improving over Ford with voters as a whole, Reagan haemorrhaged support among black voters. The black poverty rate, which had plummeted after LBJ's Great Society, ticked up slightly again (and would only start to fall again - and in fact fall rapidly - under Bill Clinton. Starting to see a pattern here?).

The tragedy of all this is that it didn't have to be that way. The Republican Party made a conscious effort to resurrect the central role of Southern racists in national politics, which took on a particularly toxic character under the cloak of the Evangelical Religious Right (which - and this can't be emphasised enough - was to a very large degree just the continuation of the segregationist movement). It's perhaps an uncomfortable fact for those of us who would like to believe in a romantic vision of democracy as representing the pure will of the people, but supply-side factors play just as important a role as demand-side ones in electoral politics. If politicians aren't selling something, voters won't buy it. No one made the Republican Party embrace Southern white resentment - there was nothing inevitable about its continued relevance in national politics.

Que osr offering his stock response that the state's rights just one sentence in his Reagan's speech, in the very town where three civil rights workers were murdered less than 20 years earlier was obviously referring to deregulation in three.. two.. one..

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Southern Strategy was both very real and had disastrous consequences. In 1976, America was obviously very far from being a post-racial paradise, but things did indeed seem to be moving in the right direction. Neither of that year's presidential candidates made any kind of concerted appeal to Southern segregationists (Ford won 16% of the black vote, a number no Republican presidential nominee since has exceeded), while across the South, a new generation of centre-left Democrats was being swept into office on the backs of multiracial coalitions, while many in the Republican minority in these states were pretty moderate. It seemed that both parties were ignoring the last gasps of racist Southern whites, whose influence on politics was rapidly waning.

Then along came Reagan and Atwater and all the rest. The Neshoba County Fair 'states' rights' speech, which remains one of the all-time low points of modern American politics. While of course massively improving over Ford with voters as a whole, Reagan haemorrhaged support among black voters. The black poverty rate, which had plummeted after LBJ's Great Society, ticked up slightly again (and would only start to fall again - and in fact fall rapidly - under Bill Clinton. Starting to see a pattern here?).

The tragedy of all this is that it didn't have to be that way. The Republican Party made a conscious effort to resurrect the central role of Southern racists in national politics, which took on a particularly toxic character under the cloak of the Evangelical Religious Right (which - and this can't be emphasised enough - was to a very large degree just the continuation of the segregationist movement). It's perhaps an uncomfortable fact for those of us who would like to believe in a romantic vision of democracy as representing the pure will of the people, but supply-side factors play just as important a role as demand-side ones in electoral politics. If politicians aren't selling something, voters won't buy it. No one made the Republican Party embrace Southern white resentment - there was nothing inevitable about its continued relevance in national politics.

1. Actually read Reagan’s state rights speech and you can see there was nothing wrong with the content of it .  

2. Ok tell me what did the racists get policy wise in the past 40 years if The southern strategy was so evil .

3. I mean you are an economic progressive as well , and without the southern strategy it’s likely the US is more like Canada today and you would obviously prefer that but I 100 would not .  

4. Also look at a map of the 1980 election and you can see Reagan lost the White Rural Vote in the south . He just overwhelmingly won the suburban vote and proved you could win states just by winning that vote and that’s what changed politics.

Reagan showed that any candidate who could dominate the suburbs , would win that particular state and it really didn’t matter how a candidate did in rural or urban areas in that state as well .

[jojoju1998]

The Southern Strategy was both very real and had disastrous consequences. In 1976, America was obviously very far from being a post-racial paradise, but things did indeed seem to be moving in the right direction. Neither of that year's presidential candidates made any kind of concerted appeal to Southern segregationists (Ford won 16% of the black vote, a number no Republican presidential nominee since has exceeded), while across the South, a new generation of centre-left Democrats was being swept into office on the backs of multiracial coalitions, while many in the Republican minority in these states were pretty moderate. It seemed that both parties were ignoring the last gasps of racist Southern whites, whose influence on politics was rapidly waning.

Then along came Reagan and Atwater and all the rest. The Neshoba County Fair 'states' rights' speech, which remains one of the all-time low points of modern American politics. While of course massively improving over Ford with voters as a whole, Reagan haemorrhaged support among black voters. The black poverty rate, which had plummeted after LBJ's Great Society, ticked up slightly again (and would only start to fall again - and in fact fall rapidly - under Bill Clinton. Starting to see a pattern here?).

The tragedy of all this is that it didn't have to be that way. The Republican Party made a conscious effort to resurrect the central role of Southern racists in national politics, which took on a particularly toxic character under the cloak of the Evangelical Religious Right (which - and this can't be emphasised enough - was to a very large degree just the continuation of the segregationist movement). It's perhaps an uncomfortable fact for those of us who would like to believe in a romantic vision of democracy as representing the pure will of the people, but supply-side factors play just as important a role as demand-side ones in electoral politics. If politicians aren't selling something, voters won't buy it. No one made the Republican Party embrace Southern white resentment - there was nothing inevitable about its continued relevance in national politics.

1. Actually read Reagan’s state rights speech and you can see there was nothing wrong with the content of it .  

2. Ok tell me what did the racists get policy wise in the past 40 years if The southern strategy was so evil .

3. I mean you are an economic progressive as well , and without the southern strategy it’s likely the US is more like Canada today and you would obviously prefer that but I 100 would not .  

4. Also look at a map of the 1980 election and you can see Reagan lost the White Rural Vote in the south . He just overwhelmingly won the suburban vote and proved you could win states just by winning that vote and that’s what changed politics.

Reagan showed that any candidate who could dominate the suburbs , would win that particular state and it really didn’t matter how a candidate did in rural or urban areas in that state as well .

You’re not wrong.


Up until hell, 2008 even, Appalachia, and the rural south was still moderately competitive. Obama even won some counties in West Virginia.

[Vosem]

Even more generally, the actual politicians who wanted segregation to be reinstated remained Democrats well into the heyday of the 1980s, or long after the Southern Strategy had been in effect. There really isn't any evidence that it was based on racial resentment, which is why to 'prove' this people commonly resort to either the location of a speech coinciding with the location of another, or the literal ravings of a man dying of a brain tumor (nobody has cited Atwater yet but it's obviously going to happen). It's never done with appeals to things that were actually done in office, because they were transparently not racially motivated.

Moreover, all examples of 'dog whistlism' in politics are like this: a close examination reveals that paying attention to alleged dog whistles would not allow you to make accurate predictions about politicians' time in office, and paying attention to what they actually say usually would. And this is true of every culture, not just the United States!

Many of these white voters still support things like universal healthcare, slightly higher taxes for the wealthy, etc., but know that if they vote Republican, black and Hispanic people will be more harmed by GOP economic policies.

"Yeah, I know that voting for the Republican means I might lose my Obamacare, but the GOP will cut TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid for those mooching welfare queens, and we know they don't deserve those benefits!"

I like the part where they continue to do this even as they vote for black and Hispanic politicians and racially intermarry at greater rates and reports of actual racist sentiment in polls have dropped so low as to basically equal the lizardman constant. But we know that, deep down, they really are racist! Some studies that failed to replicate said so!

At some point you have to cut the Gordian knot and admit that maybe people think that if you lower taxes on the wealthy and privatize healthcare, they personally will be better off.

[Badger]

The Southern Strategy was both very real and had disastrous consequences. In 1976, America was obviously very far from being a post-racial paradise, but things did indeed seem to be moving in the right direction. Neither of that year's presidential candidates made any kind of concerted appeal to Southern segregationists (Ford won 16% of the black vote, a number no Republican presidential nominee since has exceeded), while across the South, a new generation of centre-left Democrats was being swept into office on the backs of multiracial coalitions, while many in the Republican minority in these states were pretty moderate. It seemed that both parties were ignoring the last gasps of racist Southern whites, whose influence on politics was rapidly waning.

Then along came Reagan and Atwater and all the rest. The Neshoba County Fair 'states' rights' speech, which remains one of the all-time low points of modern American politics. While of course massively improving over Ford with voters as a whole, Reagan haemorrhaged support among black voters. The black poverty rate, which had plummeted after LBJ's Great Society, ticked up slightly again (and would only start to fall again - and in fact fall rapidly - under Bill Clinton. Starting to see a pattern here?).

The tragedy of all this is that it didn't have to be that way. The Republican Party made a conscious effort to resurrect the central role of Southern racists in national politics, which took on a particularly toxic character under the cloak of the Evangelical Religious Right (which - and this can't be emphasised enough - was to a very large degree just the continuation of the segregationist movement). It's perhaps an uncomfortable fact for those of us who would like to believe in a romantic vision of democracy as representing the pure will of the people, but supply-side factors play just as important a role as demand-side ones in electoral politics. If politicians aren't selling something, voters won't buy it. No one made the Republican Party embrace Southern white resentment - there was nothing inevitable about its continued relevance in national politics.

1. Actually read Reagan’s state rights speech and you can see there was nothing wrong with the content of it .  

2. Ok tell me what did the racists get policy wise in the past 40 years if The southern strategy was so evil .

3. I mean you are an economic progressive as well , and without the southern strategy it’s likely the US is more like Canada today and you would obviously prefer that but I 100 would not .  

4. Also look at a map of the 1980 election and you can see Reagan lost the White Rural Vote in the south . He just overwhelmingly won the suburban vote and proved you could win states just by winning that vote and that’s what changed politics.

Reagan showed that any candidate who could dominate the suburbs , would win that particular state and it really didn’t matter how a candidate did in rural or urban areas in that state as well .

Characteristically foolish and myopic on so many levels, but let's start with the biggest Whopper of all that white Suburban Southerners in 1980 weren't especially racist.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Southern Strategy was both very real and had disastrous consequences. In 1976, America was obviously very far from being a post-racial paradise, but things did indeed seem to be moving in the right direction. Neither of that year's presidential candidates made any kind of concerted appeal to Southern segregationists (Ford won 16% of the black vote, a number no Republican presidential nominee since has exceeded), while across the South, a new generation of centre-left Democrats was being swept into office on the backs of multiracial coalitions, while many in the Republican minority in these states were pretty moderate. It seemed that both parties were ignoring the last gasps of racist Southern whites, whose influence on politics was rapidly waning.

Then along came Reagan and Atwater and all the rest. The Neshoba County Fair 'states' rights' speech, which remains one of the all-time low points of modern American politics. While of course massively improving over Ford with voters as a whole, Reagan haemorrhaged support among black voters. The black poverty rate, which had plummeted after LBJ's Great Society, ticked up slightly again (and would only start to fall again - and in fact fall rapidly - under Bill Clinton. Starting to see a pattern here?).

The tragedy of all this is that it didn't have to be that way. The Republican Party made a conscious effort to resurrect the central role of Southern racists in national politics, which took on a particularly toxic character under the cloak of the Evangelical Religious Right (which - and this can't be emphasised enough - was to a very large degree just the continuation of the segregationist movement). It's perhaps an uncomfortable fact for those of us who would like to believe in a romantic vision of democracy as representing the pure will of the people, but supply-side factors play just as important a role as demand-side ones in electoral politics. If politicians aren't selling something, voters won't buy it. No one made the Republican Party embrace Southern white resentment - there was nothing inevitable about its continued relevance in national politics.

1. Actually read Reagan’s state rights speech and you can see there was nothing wrong with the content of it .  

2. Ok tell me what did the racists get policy wise in the past 40 years if The southern strategy was so evil .

3. I mean you are an economic progressive as well , and without the southern strategy it’s likely the US is more like Canada today and you would obviously prefer that but I 100 would not .  

4. Also look at a map of the 1980 election and you can see Reagan lost the White Rural Vote in the south . He just overwhelmingly won the suburban vote and proved you could win states just by winning that vote and that’s what changed politics.

Reagan showed that any candidate who could dominate the suburbs , would win that particular state and it really didn’t matter how a candidate did in rural or urban areas in that state as well .

Characteristically foolish and myopic on so many levels, but let's start with the biggest Whopper of all that white Suburban Southerners in 1980 weren't especially racist.

You still haven’t answered my question of what policy win did the southern racists get in the past 40 years .

Policy > Vibes so please answer that question

[jojoju1998]

The Southern Strategy was both very real and had disastrous consequences. In 1976, America was obviously very far from being a post-racial paradise, but things did indeed seem to be moving in the right direction. Neither of that year's presidential candidates made any kind of concerted appeal to Southern segregationists (Ford won 16% of the black vote, a number no Republican presidential nominee since has exceeded), while across the South, a new generation of centre-left Democrats was being swept into office on the backs of multiracial coalitions, while many in the Republican minority in these states were pretty moderate. It seemed that both parties were ignoring the last gasps of racist Southern whites, whose influence on politics was rapidly waning.

Then along came Reagan and Atwater and all the rest. The Neshoba County Fair 'states' rights' speech, which remains one of the all-time low points of modern American politics. While of course massively improving over Ford with voters as a whole, Reagan haemorrhaged support among black voters. The black poverty rate, which had plummeted after LBJ's Great Society, ticked up slightly again (and would only start to fall again - and in fact fall rapidly - under Bill Clinton. Starting to see a pattern here?).

The tragedy of all this is that it didn't have to be that way. The Republican Party made a conscious effort to resurrect the central role of Southern racists in national politics, which took on a particularly toxic character under the cloak of the Evangelical Religious Right (which - and this can't be emphasised enough - was to a very large degree just the continuation of the segregationist movement). It's perhaps an uncomfortable fact for those of us who would like to believe in a romantic vision of democracy as representing the pure will of the people, but supply-side factors play just as important a role as demand-side ones in electoral politics. If politicians aren't selling something, voters won't buy it. No one made the Republican Party embrace Southern white resentment - there was nothing inevitable about its continued relevance in national politics.

1. Actually read Reagan’s state rights speech and you can see there was nothing wrong with the content of it .  

2. Ok tell me what did the racists get policy wise in the past 40 years if The southern strategy was so evil .

3. I mean you are an economic progressive as well , and without the southern strategy it’s likely the US is more like Canada today and you would obviously prefer that but I 100 would not .  

4. Also look at a map of the 1980 election and you can see Reagan lost the White Rural Vote in the south . He just overwhelmingly won the suburban vote and proved you could win states just by winning that vote and that’s what changed politics.

Reagan showed that any candidate who could dominate the suburbs , would win that particular state and it really didn’t matter how a candidate did in rural or urban areas in that state as well .

Characteristically foolish and myopic on so many levels, but let's start with the biggest Whopper of all that white Suburban Southerners in 1980 weren't especially racist.

All three of you should calm down. Lol.

The truth is not as clear cut, as three of you might think.

Reagan’s coalition was very very broad, and it did include racists, but also western Silicon Valley businessmen, suburban voters, and Religous conservatives.

Reagan used  racial  language to keep the white working class voters in line, Religous rhetoric to keep the Religous conservatives in line, and supply side economics to keep the business people and suburbs happy.

It was a very very disparate coalition. In a normal world, none of these groups would have anything in common with each other. But I attest that to Reagan’s skill that he managed to keep them together.

[Badger]

Even more generally, the actual politicians who wanted segregation to be reinstated remained Democrats well into the heyday of the 1980s, or long after the Southern Strategy had been in effect. There really isn't any evidence that it was based on racial resentment, which is why to 'prove' this people commonly resort to either the location of a speech coinciding with the location of another, or the literal ravings of a man dying of a brain tumor (nobody has cited Atwater yet but it's obviously going to happen). It's never done with appeals to things that were actually done in office, because they were transparently not racially motivated.

Moreover, all examples of 'dog whistlism' in politics are like this: a close examination reveals that paying attention to alleged dog whistles would not allow you to make accurate predictions about politicians' time in office, and paying attention to what they actually say usually would. And this is true of every culture, not just the United States!

Many of these white voters still support things like universal healthcare, slightly higher taxes for the wealthy, etc., but know that if they vote Republican, black and Hispanic people will be more harmed by GOP economic policies.

"Yeah, I know that voting for the Republican means I might lose my Obamacare, but the GOP will cut TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid for those mooching welfare queens, and we know they don't deserve those benefits!"

I like the part where they continue to do this even as they vote for black and Hispanic politicians and racially intermarry at greater rates and reports of actual racist sentiment in polls have dropped so low as to basically equal the lizardman constant. But we know that, deep down, they really are racist! Some studies that failed to replicate said so!

At some point you have to cut the Gordian knot and admit that maybe people think that if you lower taxes on the wealthy and privatize healthcare, they personally will be better off.

Just because conservatives will vote for blacks or Hispanics who tell them what they want to hear the same as white conservative politicians, even when those views do not reflect the views of the vast majority of Black and Hispanic voters proves nothing about there being intrinsic racism or a history thereof in the past decades and right up to the present in the Republican party. This whole " look at my African-American supporter!!" Proves nothing. Let's get to the point where conservatives can regularly earn more than 10% if they're lucky of the African-American vote, and ditto for the large percentage of Hispanics and Asians- notwithstanding some shifts in 2020 which have yet to be shown to be long-term- and then we can discuss whether or not the Republican party has a problem with race. But if you're getting 10% of the African-American vote and regularly getting blown out with other minorities, yeah, the problem isn't with those voters, but with the Republican party. Very difficult for you to accept I know, but reality and you rarely been on speaking terms.

[jojoju1998]

Even more generally, the actual politicians who wanted segregation to be reinstated remained Democrats well into the heyday of the 1980s, or long after the Southern Strategy had been in effect. There really isn't any evidence that it was based on racial resentment, which is why to 'prove' this people commonly resort to either the location of a speech coinciding with the location of another, or the literal ravings of a man dying of a brain tumor (nobody has cited Atwater yet but it's obviously going to happen). It's never done with appeals to things that were actually done in office, because they were transparently not racially motivated.

Moreover, all examples of 'dog whistlism' in politics are like this: a close examination reveals that paying attention to alleged dog whistles would not allow you to make accurate predictions about politicians' time in office, and paying attention to what they actually say usually would. And this is true of every culture, not just the United States!

Many of these white voters still support things like universal healthcare, slightly higher taxes for the wealthy, etc., but know that if they vote Republican, black and Hispanic people will be more harmed by GOP economic policies.

"Yeah, I know that voting for the Republican means I might lose my Obamacare, but the GOP will cut TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid for those mooching welfare queens, and we know they don't deserve those benefits!"

I like the part where they continue to do this even as they vote for black and Hispanic politicians and racially intermarry at greater rates and reports of actual racist sentiment in polls have dropped so low as to basically equal the lizardman constant. But we know that, deep down, they really are racist! Some studies that failed to replicate said so!

At some point you have to cut the Gordian knot and admit that maybe people think that if you lower taxes on the wealthy and privatize healthcare, they personally will be better off.

Just because conservatives will vote for blacks or Hispanics who tell them what they want to hear the same as white conservative politicians, even when those views do not reflect the views of the vast majority of Black and Hispanic voters proves nothing about there being intrinsic racism or a history thereof in the past decades and right up to the present in the Republican party. This whole " look at my African-American supporter!!" Proves nothing. Let's get to the point where conservatives can regularly earn more than 10% if they're lucky of the African-American vote, and ditto for the large percentage of Hispanics and Asians- notwithstanding some shifts in 2020 which have yet to be shown to be long-term- and then we can discuss whether or not the Republican party has a problem with race. But if you're getting 10% of the African-American vote and regularly getting blown out with other minorities, yeah, the problem isn't with those voters, but with the Republican party. Very difficult for you to accept I know, but reality and you rarely been on speaking terms.

2020 has shown that Trump has improved with minority voters.....


but in rural, more working class areas.

Which might show that future elections, might not be about race at all, but about education levels, and where you live. Rural ? Or Urban ?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Even more generally, the actual politicians who wanted segregation to be reinstated remained Democrats well into the heyday of the 1980s, or long after the Southern Strategy had been in effect. There really isn't any evidence that it was based on racial resentment, which is why to 'prove' this people commonly resort to either the location of a speech coinciding with the location of another, or the literal ravings of a man dying of a brain tumor (nobody has cited Atwater yet but it's obviously going to happen). It's never done with appeals to things that were actually done in office, because they were transparently not racially motivated.

Moreover, all examples of 'dog whistlism' in politics are like this: a close examination reveals that paying attention to alleged dog whistles would not allow you to make accurate predictions about politicians' time in office, and paying attention to what they actually say usually would. And this is true of every culture, not just the United States!

Many of these white voters still support things like universal healthcare, slightly higher taxes for the wealthy, etc., but know that if they vote Republican, black and Hispanic people will be more harmed by GOP economic policies.

"Yeah, I know that voting for the Republican means I might lose my Obamacare, but the GOP will cut TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid for those mooching welfare queens, and we know they don't deserve those benefits!"

I like the part where they continue to do this even as they vote for black and Hispanic politicians and racially intermarry at greater rates and reports of actual racist sentiment in polls have dropped so low as to basically equal the lizardman constant. But we know that, deep down, they really are racist! Some studies that failed to replicate said so!

At some point you have to cut the Gordian knot and admit that maybe people think that if you lower taxes on the wealthy and privatize healthcare, they personally will be better off.

Just because conservatives will vote for blacks or Hispanics who tell them what they want to hear the same as white conservative politicians, even when those views do not reflect the views of the vast majority of Black and Hispanic voters proves nothing about there being intrinsic racism or a history thereof in the past decades and right up to the present in the Republican party. This whole " look at my African-American supporter!!" Proves nothing. Let's get to the point where conservatives can regularly earn more than 10% if they're lucky of the African-American vote, and ditto for the large percentage of Hispanics and Asians- notwithstanding some shifts in 2020 which have yet to be shown to be long-term- and then we can discuss whether or not the Republican party has a problem with race. But if you're getting 10% of the African-American vote and regularly getting blown out with other minorities, yeah, the problem isn't with those voters, but with the Republican party. Very difficult for you to accept I know, but reality and you rarely been on speaking terms.

Republicans got 40% of Asians and Hispanics in the last election and that is despite the fact that a huge number of them live in solidly blue states .

In TX Abbott won 48% of the Asian vote , and in FL DeSantis won 58% of Hispanics(who aren’t just Cubans)

[Vosem]

Just because conservatives will vote for blacks or Hispanics who tell them what they want to hear the same as white conservative politicians, even when those views do not reflect the views of the vast majority of Black and Hispanic voters proves nothing about there being intrinsic racism or a history thereof in the past decades and right up to the present in the Republican party. This whole " look at my African-American supporter!!" Proves nothing.

It does, actually; the raw numbers involved here are quite large. (Hundreds of thousands of African-Americans vote Republican in any given US presidential election, even in the Obama races). Moreover, you should try to judge people by their actions, not in some weird circuitous way where you're judging them by how others have already judged them.

Let's get to the point where conservatives can regularly earn more than 10% if they're lucky of the African-American vote, and ditto for the large percentage of Hispanics and Asians- notwithstanding some shifts in 2020 which have yet to be shown to be long-term- and then we can discuss whether or not the Republican party has a problem with race. But if you're getting 10% of the African-American vote and regularly getting blown out with other minorities, yeah, the problem isn't with those voters, but with the Republican party. Very difficult for you to accept I know, but reality and you rarely been on speaking terms.

Conservatives bottomed out at about a quarter of the Hispanic and Asian vote, and typically get over a third; these numbers are perfectly respectable. (Unlike with blacks, they also routinely win particular subdemographics; there exist overwhelmingly-Hispanic areas that are Safe R and, while that's not true for Asian areas, ther exist overwhelmingly-Asian areas that are Leans R or so and at least typically vote GOP). Even if that wasn't true, though, the absolute numbers here are again very large. Even if that wasn't true, you should judge people by their actions, not by how others have judged them. You are multiple layers deep in your bad thinking here; you can only reach the nonsense you've posted with several different layers of faulty premises.