Republicans / Ethnic Minorities

[acsenray]

Can we just agree that both parties have had their share of racists?

Oh, that's rich.

[acsenray]

Once you become an American, really become an American, then you start to vote Republican.

This is a load of bullcrap and it is a perfect example of Republican propaganda. Politics is not about who's a real American. Politics is about policy, which real Americans may disagree about. When a faction starts defining real Americans by who agrees with them --- well, that's fascism, pal.

[angus]

Once you become an American, really become an American, then you start to vote Republican.

This is a load of bullcrap and it is a perfect example of Republican propaganda. Politics is not about who's a real American. Politics is about policy, which real Americans may disagree about. When a faction starts defining real Americans by who agrees with them --- well, that's fascism, pal.

Okay, I'll try again.  I share your sentiment.  (either you're surprised, or you think I'm a liar, right about now)  I really do share that sentiment you are trying to verbalize.  However, let me suggest that you misinterpreted my post.  (maybe you didn't, but I'll assume for the moment you did and try to restate it, especially since I agree that one manifestation of fascism is a requirement that others agree with you.  well, sort of.)

You'll hear lots of talk about the Republican and Democrat parties, what they stand for, and their positions.  Most often, you'll hear Republicans telling you what Democrats stand for, and Democrats telling you what Republicans stand for.  And usually the discussions are crowded with the vague and often misapplied labels conservative and liberal and such.  Well, friend, I offer you something rare indeed, and I'll welcome a return of the favor.  What you have today is a Republican telling you what Republicans are about.  And not just any republican.  A former member of the Massachusetts Revolutionary Workers Party Republican.  A Sierra Club member Republican.  A Republican who voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and in 1996.  Now, here's my take on the GOP:

The underlying characteristic that has always defined the GOP, since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856, is Nationalism.  That's it.  Quite simple, really.  In practical terms, in some eras the GOP is more "liberal" than the democrats, and in some eras the GOP is more "conservative" than the democrats.  But always more nationalistic.  Best way to define the Democrats (and I was a democrat waaayyyy longer than I have been a Republican) is to define the GOP, and then define the dems relative to the GOP.  What's the counter to Nationalism?  Well, it depends on the era.  Actually, on the economic circumstances of the people in the GOP.  In 1856, the opposite of Nationalism was Sectionalism, of course.  Now, the GOP is still more nationalistic.  Just like Lincoln, who thoroughly enjoyed wrapping himself up in God and the Flag, so does Bush.  ("Mine eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord.  He is trampling through the vintage where the grapes of WRATH are stored.")  Yeah, boss.  God and Glory.  Don't mistake it, the GOP is and has always been the more nationalistic of the two parties.  This is precisely why most foreigners like the Dems better, and precisely why it takes about the same number of generations to "acclimate" that it does to start producing GOP voters in any immigrant family.  According to the US department of the interior, about three.

More recently, counters to Nationalism have been Internationalism.  But whatever is fashionable as a counter to Nationalism, there is still Nationalism.  And the GOP is the party of American Nationalism.  Unlike most republicans, I do not become consternated when I learn that most foreigners like the dems better.  This is because, unlike most republicans, I understand the historical notions that define the GOP and hold us together as a party.  I do not call other republicans ignorant, because I have shared this information with republicans before.  But it is something they often forget.  This is also no surprise, since it is most often the case, at least on TV, radio, print, and in this forum, it is Democrats telling us what Republicans stand for, and Republicans telling us what Democrats stand for.  

I am not telling you that you should believe that US nationalism should inform your vote.  That would be fascism.  I am simply telling you that nationalism is not only greater in one party than in the other, but that it is the very defining characteristic of one party, and not the other.

[MarkDel]

Once you become an American, really become an American, then you start to vote Republican.

This is a load of bullcrap and it is a perfect example of Republican propaganda. Politics is not about who's a real American. Politics is about policy, which real Americans may disagree about. When a faction starts defining real Americans by who agrees with them --- well, that's fascism, pal.

Okay, I'll try again.  I share your sentiment.  (either you're surprised, or you think I'm a liar, right about now)  I really do share that sentiment you are trying to verbalize.  However, let me suggest that you misinterpreted my post.  (maybe you didn't, but I'll assume for the moment you did and try to restate it, especially since I agree that one manifestation of fascism is a requirement that others agree with you.  well, sort of.)

You'll hear lots of talk about the Republican and Democrat parties, what they stand for, and their positions.  Most often, you'll hear Republicans telling you what Democrats stand for, and Democrats telling you what Republicans stand for.  And usually the discussions are crowded with the vague and often misapplied labels conservative and liberal and such.  Well, friend, I offer you something rare indeed, and I'll welcome a return of the favor.  What you have today is a Republican telling you what Republicans are about.  And not just any republican.  A former member of the Massachusetts Revolutionary Workers Party Republican.  A Sierra Club member Republican.  A Republican who voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and in 1996.  Now, here's my take on the GOP:

The underlying characteristic that has always defined the GOP, since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856, is Nationalism.  That's it.  Quite simple, really.  In practical terms, in some eras the GOP is more "liberal" than the democrats, and in some eras the GOP is more "conservative" than the democrats.  But always more nationalistic.  Best way to define the Democrats (and I was a democrat waaayyyy longer than I have been a Republican) is to define the GOP, and then define the dems relative to the GOP.  What's the counter to Nationalism?  Well, it depends on the era.  Actually, on the economic circumstances of the people in the GOP.  In 1856, the opposite of Nationalism was Sectionalism, of course.  Now, the GOP is still more nationalistic.  Just like Lincoln, who thoroughly enjoyed wrapping himself up in God and the Flag, so does Bush.  ("Mine eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord.  He is trampling through the vintage where the grapes of WRATH are stored.")  Yeah, boss.  God and Glory.  Don't mistake it, the GOP is and has always been the more nationalistic of the two parties.  This is precisely why most foreigners like the Dems better, and precisely why it takes about the same number of generations to "acclimate" that it does to start producing GOP voters in any immigrant family.  According to the US department of the interior, about three.

More recently, counters to Nationalism have been Internationalism.  But whatever is fashionable as a counter to Nationalism, there is still Nationalism.  And the GOP is the party of American Nationalism.  Unlike most republicans, I do not become consternated when I learn that most foreigners like the dems better.  This is because, unlike most republicans, I understand the historical notions that define the GOP and hold us together as a party.  I do not call other republicans ignorant, because I have shared this information with republicans before.  But it is something they often forget.  This is also no surprise, since it is most often the case, at least on TV, radio, print, and in this forum, it is Democrats telling us what Republicans stand for, and Republicans telling us what Democrats stand for.  

I am not telling you that you should believe that US nationalism should inform your vote.  That would be fascism.  I am simply telling you that nationalism is not only greater in one party than in the other, but that it is the very defining characteristic of one party, and not the other.

Angus,

You are pretty much right on target here. Nationalism and love of our country is in fact the only thing that holds together the Republican Party and its many, many diverse coalitions. For example, what does a religious zealot like Ralph Reed or Pat Robertson have in common with a social moderate like me that we would ALL be staunch Republicans? Nationalism and foreign policy issues...no doubt.

[PBrunsel]

Republicans are the party founded in Rippon, WI, in 1854 to fight against expansion of slavery. Then Lincoln emmancipated the slaves. Then the Republican passed the 13th Ammendment (voted solidly against by Democrats) that outlawed slavery.

I think the GOP is good on race relations.

[The Dowager Mod]

now you know that's kinda disingenous.
the two parties have basically switched places on many issues since then.

[PBrunsel]

now you know that's kinda disingenous.
the two parties have basically switched places on many issues since then.

I know Texasgurl. I just wanted to get a history fact in.

[??????????]

Can we just agree that both parties have had their share of racists?

Oh, that's rich.

You don't agree? Oh I forgot...lets talk about some great leaders who "advanced" the black man in America.

Albert Gore Sr
Lyndon B. Johnson
Robert Byrd
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
And how about the loads of segregationist Southern Democrats still in your party?
Do you think Ted Kennedy would hang out with black people or invite them to dinner?


Need I go on?

[acsenray]

Maybe you do need to go on, because your post makes absolutely no sense. I really don't know what this list is supposed to signify. It's a collection of people who lived in different times and whose political careers have little to do with each other, except for the fact that they are Democrats. You have people on there who risked their own political careers to pursue racial equality.

In any case, bringing up names like Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson is never going to boost the Republican case. These people have nothing to do with the modern Democratic party. In their times, I wouldn't have been a Democrat myself, so this whole line of argument is nonsensical.

When it comes to whatever segregationist Democrats remain in the party, the only question that remains is how long it will take before they switch parties.

(Robert Byrd, while having a racist past, is no segregationist. He has repeatedly denounced his membership in the KKK and has a lifetime record of good, liberal politics. To hold him up as an example of racism in the Democratic party is a joke, especially when there are Republicans like Trent Lott who even now express support for the racist politics that Byrd has repeatedly repudiated.)

And that comment about Kennedy is not worth responding to.

The only thing that's relevant is our times, and the fact is that the modern Republican party absolutely counts on racial hatred in order to get votes. But you already know that, or you wouldn't be calling yourself "States' Rights."

[acsenray]

And my point is that bringing nationalism into politics is nothing more than propagandizing what should be a reasoned process of deciding what policies to pursue. Politics, whether domestic or international, is not a football game. It's not about who's No. 1. It's about doing what's right. And when your argument is that your political opponents are inferior because they are insufficiently nationalistic or patriotic, that's just perfidious demagoguery and nothing more.

[??????????]

Maybe you do need to go on, because your post makes absolutely no sense. I really don't know what this list is supposed to signify. It's a collection of people who lived in different times and whose political careers have little to do with each other, except for the fact that they are Democrats. You have people on there who risked their own political careers to pursue racial equality.

In any case, bringing up names like Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson is never going to boost the Republican case. These people have nothing to do with the modern Democratic party. In their times, I wouldn't have been a Democrat myself, so this whole line of argument is nonsensical.

When it comes to whatever segregationist Democrats remain in the party, the only question that remains is how long it will take before they switch parties.

(Robert Byrd, while having a racist past, is no segregationist. He has repeatedly denounced his membership in the KKK and has a lifetime record of good, liberal politics. To hold him up as an example of racism in the Democratic party is a joke, especially when there are Republicans like Trent Lott who even now express support for the racist politics that Byrd has repeatedly repudiated.)

And that comment about Kennedy is not worth responding to.

The only thing that's relevant is our times, and the fact is that the modern Republican party absolutely counts on racial hatred in order to get votes. But you already know that, or you wouldn't be calling yourself "States' Rights."

I forgot the concept of States Rights is a racial issue. Are you just a moron or what? The 10th Amendment is meaningless to you right? Wait, I can answer that. Y ou're a democrat so of course it's meaningless.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Can one of the GOP members of this board, briefly explain to me why there is a lack of minorities (African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans), both in the Republican Congressional delegations and in the statehouses.

Because the Republican Party is racist.

Republicans have done more to advance the black race in this nation then Democrats by a LONG shot. Want me to post the list again?

The Democrats

Our nation's top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.


The Republicans

Regarding the Republican Party, historians report that while Democrats were busy passing laws to hurt blacks, Republicans devoted their time to passing laws to help blacks. Republicans were primarily responsible for the following Civil Rights legislation:

1. The Emancipation Proclamation
2. The 13th Amendment
3. The 14th Amendment
4. The 15th Amendment
5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6. The Civil Rights of 1866
7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
8. The Forced Act of 1871
9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11. The Freeman Bureau
12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14. The United State Civil Rights Commission

And gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
legislation

15. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
17. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
18. The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
19. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
20. Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
21. Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
22. Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
23. Civil Rights Act of 1983
24. Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988

Programs By Republicans & their Supporters include:

a. Many of our key traditional Black Colleges are named after Republicans Colleges
b. The Freedman Bureau
c. Historians say that three whites that opposed the Democrat's racist practices, including the lynching of blacks, founded and funded the NAACP

www.wayneperryman.com

Ummm..

No.  The SOUTH gave us the Ku Klux Klan, the Jim Crow Laws, lynchings, murders, etc. etc. and used the Democratic party as a means to do so because they hated "the party of Lincoln".

In 1948, Hubert Humphrey, a Democrat, after successfully merging the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party with the Democratic party, challenged the Democratic party to make civil rights for blacks one of the main planks of the party platform, something the Republicans were afraid to do.

At this point, the south started to squirm like a mowed over anthill and you had all sorts of 3rd party movements until Reagan consolidated the south for the Republicans.

So... what happened?  The Republican party advances the rights of blacks when it was the party of the north. 

A mover and a shaker of the northern Democrats challenges the party to throw out the idea of states rights and work on civil rights.

The south leaves the Democratic party and joins the Republican party.

The north begins to trend Democratic after over a century of Republican voting.

States Rights, a fresh member of the Republican party tries to use the history of his party to somehow prove that the Democratic party is the racist party when he knows damn well that if he was his grand father, Republican would be a dirty word in his household.

Now I can say this:  Minnesota was a major stronghold for the Republicans from the Civil War until the early 1920s when the Farmer-Labor party became a significant 3rd party as Republicans, despite being the party of civil rights, was also the party of big business.  Farmers and laborers in Minnesota left the Republican party and joined the Farmer Labor party and embraced the Democrats on the national level in the '30s under FDR.

When our FL party merged with the Democrats, a new face in the Democratic Party came out for civil rights.  After that, Minnesota moved strongly in favor of the Democrats... the freedom loving, civil rights loving Democrats... which is why Minnesota voted Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and not the racist son of a bitch Wallace.

Don't play your stinky, filthy little games here, State's... I could punch a hole through that crap argument with a piece of cotton.